Panel can find no evidence of al-Qaeda, Iraq link for attack

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda target the United States.
In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were "apparently quite good." Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to "think creatively about ways to commit mass murder," it added.

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaeda." (Related story: Cheney reasserts al-Qaeda, Saddam link)

The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it embarked on two days of public hearings into the worst terrorist attacks in American history.

The panel intends to issue a final report in July on the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the World Trade Centers in New York and damaged the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane commandeered by terrorists crashed in the countryside in Pennsylvania.

The staff report pieced together information on the development of bin Laden's network, from the far-flung training camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to funding from "well-placed financial facilitators and diversions of funds from Islamic charities."

Reports that bin Laden had a huge personal fortune to finance acts of terror are overstated, the report said.

The description of the training camp operations contained elements of faint, grudging praise.

"A worldwide jihad needed terrorists who could bomb embassies or hijack airliners, but it also needed foot soldiers for the Taliban in its war against the Northern Alliance, and guerrillas who could shoot down Russian helicopters in Chechnya or ambush Indian units in Kashmir," it said.

According to one unnamed senior al-Qaeda associate, various ideas were floated by mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the commission said. The options included taking over a launcher and forcing Russian scientists to fire a nuclear missile at the United States, mounting mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iraq or releasing poison gas into the air conditioning system of a targeted building.

"Last but not least, hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into an airport or nearby city," it said.

The Iraq connection long suggested by administration officials gained no currency in the report.

"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded," the report said. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred" after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq," the report said.

In a separate report, the commission staff said that senior al-Qaeda planner Khalid Shaihk Mohammed initially proposed a Sept. 11 attack involving 10 planes. An expanded target list included the CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear plants and tall buildings in California and Washington state.

That ambitious plan was rejected by bin Laden, who ultimately approved a scaled-back mission involving four planes, the report said. Mohammed wanted more hijackers for those planes — 25 or 26, instead of 19.

The commission has identified at least 10 al-Qaeda operatives who were to participate but could not take part for reasons including visa problems and suspicion by officials at airports in the United States and overseas.

From a seamless operation, the report portrays a plot riven by internal dissent, including disagreement over whether to target the White House or the Capitol that was apparently never resolved prior to the attacks. Bin Laden also had to overcome opposition to attacking the United States from Mullah Omar, leader of the former Taliban regime, who was under pressure from Pakistan to keep al-Qaeda confined.

The United States toppled the regime in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, but Omar has eluded capture, as has al-Qaeda.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
So, no WMD, no link to Bin Laden, Saddam was not a threat to USA. Why did the US (without UN approval and international support) have this war in the first place? OIL? Maybe?

Any comments?
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
From the beginning, most of us KNEW for a fact that any suggested or implied link between Usama bin Laden and Iraq/Saddam Hussein was complete horseshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but anyone who fell into that lie and propaganda might as well just follow GW Bush, blindly, into his next attack.. then to whereever he goes after he dies (by assasination, accident, whatever).
 

Diamond Sun

Council Member
Jun 11, 2004
1,366
1
38
Within arms reach of the new baby..
Re: Panel can find no evidence of al-Qaeda, Iraq link for at

I think people forget the fact that a large majority of the terrorists involved in 9/11 were in fact from Saudi Arabia, one of the States good friends. Well, can't go attacking our good friends right, so let's point at someone who isn't giving us whatever we ask for.

Target: Iraq
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Well, good point. But there is more to it than is obvious. First they attacked Afghanistan and controlled it by a puppet governmet taken directly from the states and put as president (East). Second, they made a tyarrent like Mussaraff a hero in pakistan. He was their enemy for a long time for the illegal coup he orchastrated. (south east). They are good friends with Saudi Arabia (in which most of the hijachers came from and a very good source of flowing oil, (South West). They invaded Iraq illegally and with out UN or international support and installed a governemtn of their choosing mistrusted even by the Iraqis.(West). They paid Turkey a lot of money to be thier allies plus they promised them to be part of EU etc. etc. etc (North).

If we look at these directions I put in brackets. Does it give anyone a hint of who is stuck in the middle.


Perhaps IRAN.

then they will do the same with Syria.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
So, no WMD, no link to Bin Laden, Saddam was not a threat to USA. Why did the US (without UN approval and international support) have this war in the first place? OIL? Maybe?

Any comments?

So what? France went into the Balkans without UN support either.

Soemtimes, it's called doing the right thing.

I mean, Sudan and Libya on the UN Human Rights Commission? Gimme a break!

As for WMD, that issue still has to be played out.

Lastly, if the war was about oil, all the US had to dio was agree to lift sanctions. Instead they got saddled with huge debt and have deal with the likes of that lunatic, Al Sadr- a guy who had a pregnant woman killed and a fellow cleric as well.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
If you think that Sudan and Libya should not be on UN Human Rights Commission, do you think The US should be after their ugly abuse of human rights.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
If you think that Sudan and Libya should not be on UN Human Rights Commission, do you think The US should be after their ugly abuse of human rights.

Do you REALLY want to get into the comparison game? There is enough material from RSF, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, etc.

I don't think the comaprison game is where you want to go with this.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
You always come to me with a comparison game. Forget about the UN as it is a puppet for the US. Get real facts. The US is considered to be the greatest terosrist. Who dropped the first nuclear bomb on the Japanese? Can you answer this simple question and do you consider dropping the bomb is one of the greatest terrorist act humans witnessed?
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
You always come to me with a comparison game. Forget about the UN as it is a puppet for the US. Get real facts. The US is considered to be the greatest terosrist. Who dropped the first nuclear bomb on the Japanese? Can you answer this simple question and do you consider dropping the bomb is one of the greatest terrorist act humans witnessed?

LOLOL

The UN is a puppet of the US?

Yes the US dropped the bomb-- and that will be debated for a long time. In fact, the bomb probably saved more lives by shortening the war.

Since that time, only Iraq has used WMD, though Iran has threatened to do so in the near future.

Sure-- thats why Sudan and Libya are on the Human Rights Commission...That's why the UN refuses to deal with Darfur, etc.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
The UN is a puppet of the US. Yes. They do not want to interfere because they are told so. Period. As for Libya nad Sudan on Human rights commisiion, hey, the US have to show the world some democracy, right. That every country is entitled for something. That is another joke. What is Libya and Sudan going to do and the US isn't going to stop in its track. It is a show my friend and we are watching it live.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
The UN is a puppet of the US. Yes. They do not want to interfere because they are told so. Period. As for Libya nad Sudan on Human rights commisiion, hey, the US have to show the world some democracy, right. That every country is entitled for something. That is another joke. What is Libya and Sudan going to do and the US isn't going to stop in its track. It is a show my friend and we are watching it live.

I see. And how do you know this? Where is your evidence?

Simply saying something doesnt make it so.
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
The UN is not exactly a puppet of the US. Although the US does seem to have a lot of weird unexplained control over certain members.. Oh wait, no.. that's bribary!

The Americans won't have say in everything... Especially when you have people like Europeans who WON'T put up with the nasty bullshit the Americans (most notably, this administration) try to pull everywhere. Threatening countries with economic and trade tricks usually against the WTO. Threatening economic standings in oil if one country won't support an illegal war.

Sure the US has a lot of control and dirty tricks up their sleeve, but the UN is not a puppet of the US. Europe still has a lot of say in it.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
researchok said:
moghrabi said:
The UN is a puppet of the US. Yes. They do not want to interfere because they are told so. Period. As for Libya nad Sudan on Human rights commisiion, hey, the US have to show the world some democracy, right. That every country is entitled for something. That is another joke. What is Libya and Sudan going to do and the US isn't going to stop in its track. It is a show my friend and we are watching it live.

I see. And how do you know this? Where is your evidence?

Simply saying something doesnt make it so.


I agree with you. When YOU simply say something, it doesn't make it so either. Either one of us is right and I know my facts.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Andem. This is exactly my point. The word puppet maybe was overused. And the Europeans do have a lot of say. But what happened to the Europeans when they were against the war in Iraq. Even Canada as we know now, is not going to have a share in the reconstruction benefits as the Pro-war countries. Even Turkey will have more than Canada will. Isn't that bribary and against the WTO and against the UN.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Certain parts of the UN are under control of the US, drugs and money, mostly. The US has been trying for years to gain control of the rest of the UN, which is why they constantly try to undermine the UN.

The US actually pushed for Kofi Annan to become secretary General because they thought he'd be weak and easy to control. For a time he was. He's found his footing though, with the backing of Europe, and the US is really pissed off about it.

When Annan came to Canada he asked Parliament for help not just in the form of money, but in reforming the UN. Martin said he would help, but has done little. Harper hates the UN and wants George Bush to run the world.

We have a choice to make as Canadians. Do we want the UN to become a puppet of the US or do we want a strong UN that applies its laws equally.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
Andem. This is exactly my point. The word puppet maybe was overused. And the Europeans do have a lot of say. But what happened to the Europeans when they were against the war in Iraq. Even Canada as we know now, is not going to have a share in the reconstruction benefits as the Pro-war countries. Even Turkey will have more than Canada will. Isn't that bribary and against the WTO and against the UN.

Again, you'restating an OPINION.

Do you have evidence of that?

Seems the numbes don't bear you out http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
I haven't seen one person in this forum agrees with you yet. So do not tell the numbers don't count. The links you sent me are written by neoconservatives. I have seen them. So whaever they say don't really matter regarding the facts we are discussing.

This last link. Where is it coming from. And what doesn't mean. Is it against the law to vote against the US?

Isreal votes for the US most of the time but they get paid big money for it. twelve billion per year. hint, hint....
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
researchok said:
moghrabi said:
Andem. This is exactly my point. The word puppet maybe was overused. And the Europeans do have a lot of say. But what happened to the Europeans when they were against the war in Iraq. Even Canada as we know now, is not going to have a share in the reconstruction benefits as the Pro-war countries. Even Turkey will have more than Canada will. Isn't that bribary and against the WTO and against the UN.

Again, you'restating an OPINION.

Do you have evidence of that?

Seems the numbes don't bear you out http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp


Where is the proper source for this article you gave me the link for. It is coming from

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2004
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission

Is this a proper article in your opinion? If so, God help.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
I haven't seen one person in this forum agrees with you yet. So do not tell the numbers don't count. The links you sent me are written by neoconservatives. I have seen them. So whaever they say don't really matter regarding the facts we are discussing.

This last link. Where is it coming from. And what doesn't mean. Is it against the law to vote against the US?

Isreal votes for the US most of the time but they get paid big money for it. twelve billion per year. hint, hint....

Actually, the 12 Billion number is misleading.

The US aid is equal to thatr of Egypt. Th ebalance are loan guarantees, on which Israel has never defaulted, thus 'costing' the US nothing.

In addition, that money is spent IN the US, thus creating jobs and helping to sustain the US economy.

This is pretty basic stuff.

That no one on thi sforum agrees with me is not necessarily true, nor does it mean anything. Reality is reality.

There are forums I could point to where no one would agree with you.

So what?