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


moghrabi
#1
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
#2
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
Free Thinker
#3
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
#4
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
#5
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
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

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
#7
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
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

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
#9
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
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

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
#11
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
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

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
Free Thinker
#13
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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by researchok

Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

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
#15
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
#16
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
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

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
#18
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
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by researchok

Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

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
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

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?
 
researchok
#21
Quote:

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

If you scroll down, you will refererence UN sources.
 
moghrabi
#22
So you want me to go and join your forums with people as blind as you are to convinve of what you are saying.

I got the point from. It is fruitless to even waste time going back and forth.

So if no one in this forum agrees with you, doesn't give you the slightest hint that you are wrong and your sources are biased.

Enough of this BS with you. You are entitled to your screwed up opinions. Please ask for some help.
 
researchok
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

So you want me to go and join your forums with people as blind as you are to convinve of what you are saying.

I got the point from. It is fruitless to even waste time going back and forth.

So if no one in this forum agrees with you, doesn't give you the slightest hint that you are wrong and your sources are biased.

Enough of this BS with you. You are entitled to your screwed up opinions. Please ask for some help.

First of all YOU said no one agrees.

So what-- that may or may not be true.

Th ereason I mentioned other forums is because there ARE other forums., whether you agree or not.

As for my opinions, I back them up. I'm STILL waiting for you to post referances for yours.

As for the last link, I'll say it again. You can reference the info on the UN sites.

Of course it's not a law to vote against the US.

But the info sure does poke a whole in your 'The UN is a tool of the US conspiracy theory'.

Lastly, regarding the personal attacks-- I don't know what your problem is. YOU'RE the one who keeps making them. I suspect it's a deep issue with you.

I can differentiate from opinion vs fact. Obviously, you can't or are unequipped to do so.

These forums are to debate.Is that a concept beyond you?
 
moghrabi
#24
There is nothing personal between me and you. And please do not underestimate my intelligence. We human are supposed to think things through and not just believe in what we read. This world is full of criminals of all sorts. Americans, Arabs, Indians whathaveyou.

Yes this forum is for debate and I am debating on a daily basis. These facts that appear as fats to you may not appear so to me. Fair? My opinion or ideas may mean nothing to you. This is what this forum is all about. I do not have deep issues against you whatsoever, however, if you read my other posts, i was a victim of the US and Isreali agression. I have seen it first hand. But do not take that to be against your person.

I said before and I repeat that you have a good head on your shoulder. If you don't agree with me (as has been the case) that is your right. But I don't have to agree with you either. This place is to share our opinions and thoughts and learn from each other. I hope we are learning.
 
researchok
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

There is nothing personal between me and you. And please do not underestimate my intelligence. We human are supposed to think things through and not just believe in what we read. This world is full of criminals of all sorts. Americans, Arabs, Indians whathaveyou.

Yes this forum is for debate and I am debating on a daily basis. These facts that appear as fats to you may not appear so to me. Fair? My opinion or ideas may mean nothing to you. This is what this forum is all about. I do not have deep issues against you whatsoever, however, if you read my other posts, i was a victim of the US and Isreali agression. I have seen it first hand. But do not take that to be against your person.

I said before and I repeat that you have a good head on your shoulder. If you don't agree with me (as has been the case) that is your right. But I don't have to agree with you either. This place is to share our opinions and thoughts and learn from each other. I hope we are learning.

My point is quite clear.

In any debate, there us a distinct difference between opinion and fact. One cannot substitute opinion for fact. It' sthat simple.

I have no expectations of your agreeing or disagreeing with me-- as I said, this a debate forum.

Your experiences, while relevant to you of course, as they should be, are irrelevant. They fall into the category of anecdotal.

It would be no more relevant for me to describe what I saw in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Occupied Territories. Those observations too, real as they are, are anecdotal (I'm referring in particular to something I saw in the WEst Bank, a rather horrifying [img]intrafadah[/img] event.)[/quote]
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#26
That article is obviously by someone who hates the fact the US gives foreign aide.


Oh, that's strange, it lists middle east countries. That article definately has some biases.

Quote: Originally Posted by Article

However, we also surveyed the U.N. voting records of several countries generally considered to be close allies of the U.S., and those results were none too impressive either. Only Israel consistently voted with the U.S.

Australia 44%
Canada 51%
Israel 11%
Japan 58%
United Kingdom 40%
France 46%

Duh? Ofcourse Israel will vote with the US. They both scratch each other's back. Infact, the US scratches Israel's back so much, that the country's largest lobbyist group doesn't even have a job to fufill anymore! Oh wait, they have other things.. Wrong topic though.

So what exactly is the problem with countries voting against the United States? I would not vote in favour of a lot of what the United States is upto.. Actually, I'm very proud Canada is becoming increasingly anti-US in general. We are a peace-loving country with little hate for the world, and we won't support illegal wars and ideas that support only the large corporations which sign cheques to Bush and his family.
 
researchok
#27
Hey, Andem..

I agree. My point was that the UN isn't actually held hostage by the US.

The website wasn't my point, per se.

I used it a a gateway to voting records and appropriate links to UN referance sources.
 
moghrabi
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by researchok

Hey, Andem..

I agree. My point was that the UN isn't actually held hostage by the US.

The website wasn't my point, per se.

I used it a a gateway to voting records and appropriate links to UN referance sources.

It is amazing that when someone else disagrees with you, you seem to agree with them to diagress with you. Andem looked at the same stats as I did and asked the same question (what is wrong with any country voting against the US). You try to befriend him and you come after me. Is it because I am not letting go of what I believe in? Do you have a problem with me that you do not have with the other members in this forum. Please do not make it personal.
 
researchok
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

Quote: Originally Posted by researchok

Hey, Andem..

I agree. My point was that the UN isn't actually held hostage by the US.

The website wasn't my point, per se.

I used it a a gateway to voting records and appropriate links to UN referance sources.

It is amazing that when someone else disagrees with you, you seem to agree with them to diagress with you. Andem looked at the same stats as I did and asked the same question (what is wrong with any country voting against the US). You try to befriend him and you come after me. Is it because I am not letting go of what I believe in? Do you have a problem with me that you do not have with the other members in this forum. Please do not make it personal.

I'm puzzled as to what you mean.

YOU raised the issue that the UN was dominated by the US.

On that web site, in black and white, is evidence to the contrary.

The issue isnt the conclusions of the web site. Th eissue are the SOURCES they used to draw whatever conclusion they wanted to.

As i stated earlier, countries can vite how they please-- which is EXACTLY what the website confirms, through their interpretation of UN sources.

Again, there is no evidence of the UN being a US controlled entity. Just the opposite, in fact.
 
moghrabi
#30
Just the opposite, in fact? Is that what you really think and believe? That the US is controlled by the UN? I will have to leave this issue to some other memeber to answer because I am losing my hair here. You don't seem to make any sense at least to me.