Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
supercar

Obama's spurious Al-Qaeda claims

36 posts in this topic

'It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large'

Barack Obama

July 15,2008

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7507929.stm

Nope. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 DIED on 9/11.

In addition 7,000 al-Qaeda members have been killed or captured and are no longer 'at large' as Obama claims:

'We have now killed or captured over 7,000 al Qaeda and Iraq terrorists. More than 30 senior level al Qaeda and Iraq terrorists have been captured or killed since July alone'

MAJ. GENERAL WILLIAM CALDWELL

MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE IRAQ

December 2,2006

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/02/tww.01.html

Al-Qaida leaders reported killed or captured since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001:

Waleed bin Attash

Police on April 29, 2003, arrested alleged al-Qaida operational commander Waleed bin Attash, suspected of helping plan the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, and five other alleged al-Qaida operatives in a raid in Karachi. U.S. officials also suspect Attash, a Yemeni also known as Tawfiq Attash or Khallad, coordinated the activities of two hijackers who crashed a plane into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. U.S. law enforcement officials said a plot to crash an explosives-laden small aircraft into the U.S. consulate in Karachi was uncovered with the arrests. Pakistan's Interior Minister, Faisal Saleh Hayyat, declined to comment directly on the plot, but said the arrest helped avert a major terrorist attack.

Mohammed Atef (aka Abu Hafs)

Atef was reported killed in mid-November 2001 in a U.S. airstrike near Kabul, according to "credible" intelligence reports received from the region. He remains on the FBI's list of "Most Wanted Terrorists," however. U.S. officials said Atef, 57, was one of bin Laden's most senior deputies and a family member - his daughter was married to one of bin Laden's sons in January 2001. Atef also was a co-founder of the al-Qaida terror network and was a member of the group's ruling council, the officials said. He served as al-Qaida's top military commander. They also believe that the former Egyptian police officer was the key planner behind the Sept. 11 attacks, the bombing of the USS Cole and the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Along with bin Laden, he was indicted in connection with the embassy attacks.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

Mohammed, one of the FBI's most-wanted terrorists, was captured in a raid in Rawalpindi, near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, on March 1, 2003. U.S. intelligence officials describe Mohammed as the third-ranking official of al-Qaida, behind only Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. They say he became head of military operations following the death of Mohammed Atef, who was killed by a CIA Predator strike in November, 2001. U.S. investigators believe Mohammed, working under bin Laden's leadership, planned many aspects of the Sept. 11 attacks. The uncle of convicted World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed also is believed to have participated in or planned virtually every major al-Qaida strike, including the attacks in 1998 on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Tunisia; and a deadly attack last year on a synagogue on the Tunisian resort island of Djerba. He and alleged Sept. 11 co-conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh gave an interview to an al-Jazeera TV reporter in which they claimed to have orchestrated what they called "the martyrdom operation inside America."

Abu Zubaydah

Considered a senior planner of al-Qaida terrorist operations, he was captured by Pakistani authorities in March 2002 and turned over to the U.S. military. Zubaydah, also known as Zain Al-Abidin Muhahhad Husain and Abd Al-Hadi Al-Wahab, was shot several times while trying to evade capture but survived and was turned over to U.S. authorities. A 31-year-old Saudi citizen of Palestinian descent, Zubaydah was, at the time of his apprehension, the most senior al-Qaida member to be captured. U.S. intelligence officials say he later provided useful information about pending plots, including intelligence that led to the detention of Jose Padilla, the American who federal officials allege was plotting to use a radiological weapon on U.S. soil.

Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi (aka Shaihk Saiid; Sa'd al-Sharif)

Al-Hawsawi, who authorities believe was the main money man behind the Sept. 11 operation, was arrested in Rawlpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. He is described as a "supporting conspirator" in the indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks for allegedly providing financial support to the hijackers using bank accounts he controlled in the United Arab Emirates.

Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman

Allegedly a senior al-Qaida operative and the son of the blind Egyptian sheik accused of inspiring the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was arrested in February 2003 in Quetta, Pakistan. U.S. officials say Abdel-Rahman ran a training camp in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks and also had a role in operational planning. His father, Omar Abdel-Rahman, is in a U.S. prison for a 1994 plot to bomb landmarks around New York City.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri

Al-Qaida's Persian Gulf operations chief who believed to have been heavily involved in the planning of the bombing of the USS Cole. Al-Nashiri, a Saudi, was captured in November 2002 in the United Arab Emirates. Al-Nashiri was arrested based on intelligence provided by Saudi authorities, sources told the Associated Press. He was transferred to U.S. custody shortly after his apprehension and was questioned at an undisclosed location for several days before his apprehension was announced by U.S. officials. U.S. officials say he has been surprisingly cooperative.

Ramzi Binalshibh

A 30-year-old Yemeni, Binalshibh was arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks after a gunfight with Pakistani police that left two other suspected al-Qaida members dead and five others in custody. Pakistan turned Binalshibh, accused of being one of the main planners of the Sept. 11 attacks when he was a roommate of suspected ringleader Mohammed Atta in Hamburg, Germany, over to U.S. authorities within days of his arrest and he was flown out of the country to an undisclosed location for questioning.

Mohammed Haydar Zammar

An al-Qaida recruiter who allegedly enlisted Mohammed Atta and other key members of the terrorist cell that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks while preaching at a mosque in Hamburg, Germany, in the mid- to late-1990s, reportedly is being held in Syria. Zammar, a German of Syrian descent, was arrested in Morocco after leaving Germany on Oct. 27, 2001, and was subsequently transferred to Syrian custody.

Ali Qaed Sinan al-Harthi

A senior al-Qaida member believed to have been involved in the planning of the attack on the USS Cole, al-Harthi was killed on Nov. 4, 2002, in Yemen by a Hellfire missile fired by a CIA-controlled drone, U.S. officials said.

Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi

Also known as "Riyadh the Facilitator," al-Sharqawi reportedly is in the custody in an unidentified country where U.S. officials have access to him. The circumstances of his capture are not known. Considered a "top 25" al-Qaida leader, al-Sharqawi was responsible for coordinating logistics and finances for al-Qaida operations before his apprehension, which occurred before April 2002.

Mohsen al-Fadli

Described by U.S. officials as a senior Kuwaiti member of al-Qaida and the network's senior leader for the Persian Gulf, al-Fadli, 21, was arrested by Kuwaiti security forces in November 2002, who said the apprehension foiled a plot to blow up a hotel in Yemen used by Americans. He was sentenced to five years in prison by a Kuwaiti court in February 2003 for "joining the military forces of a foreign country which endangered Kuwait's political ties."

Abu Zubair Haili

A Saudi operative captured in Morocco in June 2002, Haili was nicknamed "the Bear" because of his size. An associate of top al-Qaida leader Abu Zubaydah, he was described by U.S. officials as an al-Qaida recruiter and planner.

Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi

A Libyan who ran some of bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. He was captured by Pakistan and turned over to U.S. authorities in early January 2001.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi (aka Abu Abdallah)

Al-Iraqi, allegedly an al-Qaida training camp director, was reportedly captured by the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan in January 2001.

Zaid al-Khayr

Al-Khayr, a Saudi accused of serving as an al-Qaida trainer at training camps in Afghanistan, reportedly is being held in Pakistan.

Abu Jafar al-Jaziri

Al-Jaziri, a senior al-Qaida logistics coordinator, was reported killed in mid-January 2001 during U.S. bombing of the al-Qaida training complex of Zawar Kili in eastern Afghanistan.

Abu Salah al-Yemeni

Al-Yemeni, an al-Qaida logistics coordinator, reported was killed in mid-January 2001 during U.S. bombing of the terrorist training complex of Zawar Kili in eastern Afghanistan.

Tariq Anwar al-Sayyid Ahmad

Ahmad, a high-ranking member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which is closely linked with bin Laden's al-Qaida network, reportedly was killed by an airstrike near the Afghan town of Khost in early November 2000.

Muhammad Salah

Salah, described as a senior figure in Egyptian Islamic Jihad, also believed to have been killed near Khost, probably in the same strike in which al-Sayyid Ahmad died.

Tawfiq Attash Khallad

Described as an al-Qaida operational commander.

http://msnbc.com/modules/wtc/wtc_globaldra...ody_alqaida.htm

Where is Obama getting his 'information'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"We don't do body counts." Lieutenant General Tommy Franks

you do realize those numbers thrown out are guesses ? In no way can they really be counted or confirmed. It's a PR feel good number for the pro war rhetoric.

We wouldn't be in Iraq at all fighting terrorism if it wasn't for Bush. They are there because we are.

Mr Obama said "our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe".

The senator said another priority would be to take the war to al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

smart . where McCain , well ,, isn't.

Edited by Mr.Peabody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nope. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 DIED on 9/11.

Then there was really no reason to invade Iraq, right? You make the point for impeachment. Thanks.

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is at least one glaring omission....anyone remember that Osama BinLaden guy?

No doubt fighting in Iraq has resulted in the death of many Al Qaida. But attacking Iraq drew some al qaida to iraq, they weren't there while Saddam was in power. But what about Pakistan? And the reassurgence of the taliban in Afghanistan?

Clearly, we killed lots of bad guys. But unfortunately, this isn't a srpint. Or a marathon for that matter. It's a mega marathon. We'll be dealing with these people for a very, very long time, and I hope that when we leave Iraq, we implement some real security measures here at home. Something of substance, not banning hair gel from airlines....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is at least one glaring omission....anyone remember that Osama BinLaden guy?

No doubt fighting in Iraq has resulted in the death of many Al Qaida. But attacking Iraq drew some al qaida to iraq, they weren't there while Saddam was in power. But what about Pakistan? And the reassurgence of the taliban in Afghanistan?

Clearly, we killed lots of bad guys. But unfortunately, this isn't a srpint. Or a marathon for that matter. It's a mega marathon. We'll be dealing with these people for a very, very long time, and I hope that when we leave Iraq, we implement some real security measures here at home. Something of substance, not banning hair gel from airlines....

I agree. in terms of dealing with Terrorism Iraq was a waste of time , money and people . not to mention it CREATED more terrorism over all. so to claim any sort of victory is foolish . it would be like claiming victory after one has shoved their head of their own azz and then said tada I got it out !!

lol I love these quotes -

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"Can we win? I don't think you can win it." --after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." --to a group of Amish he met with privately, July 9, 2004

"**** Saddam. We're taking him out." --to three U.S. senators in March 2002, one year before the Iraq invasion, as quoted by Time magazine

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

and of course -

"People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002

but his best in my opinion ? lol

"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake." --on his best moment in office, interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, May 7, 2006

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. in terms of dealing with Terrorism Iraq was a waste of time , money and people . not to mention it CREATED more terrorism over all. so to claim any sort of victory is foolish . it would be like claiming victory after one has shoved their head of their own azz and then said tada I got it out !!

Tell us then, how many terroritst attack had there been since we entered Iraq?

And how many more terrorist are there now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is at least one glaring omission....anyone remember that Osama BinLaden guy?

Bin Laden is none a factor now, he is good as dead.

No doubt fighting in Iraq has resulted in the death of many Al Qaida. But attacking Iraq drew some al qaida to iraq, they weren't there while Saddam was in power. But what about Pakistan? And the reassurgence of the taliban in Afghanistan?

The problem we had wioth AlQAeda when it all started is how do we find them or root them out. See, now they come to us. :tu:

Clearly, we killed lots of bad guys. But unfortunately, this isn't a srpint. Or a marathon for that matter. It's a mega marathon. We'll be dealing with these people for a very, very long time, and I hope that when we leave Iraq, we implement some real security measures here at home. Something of substance, not banning hair gel from airlines....

What real security measure then do you have in mind other than what we are doing now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell us then, how many terroritst attack had there been since we entered Iraq?

And how many more terrorist are there now?

Are you only counting attacks on american soil?

How many terrorist attacks on american soil were there since 1950 up until 9/11?

Bin Laden is none a factor now, he is good as dead.

Says who? A guy orchestrates this attack and doesn't get caught...and you don't think that alone is not a factor?

The problem we had wioth AlQAeda when it all started is how do we find them or root them out. See, now they come to us.

What a brilliant strategy. Actually, they go to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? The country where there actually WAS an enemy...an enemy that is now taking advantage of our waste of resources in Iraq to come back again.

What real security measure then do you have in mind other than what we are doing now?

Well, for starters we can start securing our ports and inspecting shipping containers, securing the mexican border, AND the canadian border. I've crossed by water into canada unoticed several times since 9/11. I'm sure someone could do the same from canada to the US. Start a series of background checks for air travel, like the Israelis do. Our secrity is a joke. You could move a whole battalion into this country in a week and probably not be noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't every suicide bombing and attack on goverment buildings in Iraq a terrorist attack?

The attack on the embassy's in Afghanistan, another terrorist attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell us then, how many terroritst attack had there been since we entered Iraq?

And how many more terrorist are there now?

you really are slow aren't you ? just because there have been no attacks on american soil by al qeada doesn't mean it was due to the Iraq war . nor is it because of wiretapping !!! the bulk of terrorists in Iraq are not and were not al qeada ! our own military is quoted at 10%. !! not to mention how far away we are !!!

Estimated Numbers of Foreign Fighters.

Although there have been

differences among commanders about the contribution of the foreign fighters to the

overall violence in Iraq, estimates of the numbers of foreign fighters have remained

fairly consistent over time, at least as a percentage of the overall insurgency. As early

as October 2003, U.S. officials estimated that as many as 3,000 might be non-Iraqi,43

although, suggesting uncertainty in the estimate, Gen. Abizaid said on January 29,

2004, that the number of foreign fighters in Iraq was “low” and “in the hundreds.”44

A September 2005 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies

estimated that there were about 3,000 non-Iraqi fighters in Iraq - about 10% of the

estimated total size of the insurgency. In testimony before Congress in January 2007,

the then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (John Negroponte) said that

foreign fighters constitute less than 10% of the insurgents in Iraq. In December 2007,

al-Baghdadi (see above), the Emir (leader) of the Islamic State of Iraq (name used by

AQI, see above) claimed that the Islamic State is almost all Iraqi, and has only 200

foreign fighters.45 However, as noted above, the Islamic State of Iraq was formed

in part to try to portray AQ-I as an Iraqi, not a foreign, organization and many would

argue that the foreign component of the organization is purposely understated by AQI

spokespeople.

Of the approximately 25,000 insurgents in U.S.-led detention in Iraq as of

November 2007, only 290 or 1.2%, were non-Iraqi. This could suggest that the

percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq has dropped, or it could indicate that it has been

harder to capture the foreign fighters than it has been to capture Iraqi insurgents.

Some might argue that the foreign fighters tend to fight to the death rather than allow

themselves to be captured, and that the percentage in detention is not an accurate

indicator of the percentage of foreigners involved in the Iraq insurgency.

Report to Congress April 28 2008 Iraq and Al Qeada

Iraq has drawn terrorism there - it isn't where it came from . what part of that don't you understand ?? get a clue. If we had stayed in Afghanistan and never went into Iraq we'd still be attack free here.

Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House panel that the extremists associated with al Qaeda and Zarqawi represent "a fairly small percentage of the total number of insurgents."

Sunni Arabs, dominated by former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, "comprise the core of the insurgency" and continue to provide "funds and guidance across family, tribal, religious and peer-group lines," Jacoby said.

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded. Then sunni's who weren't Al Qeada before we invaded started calling themselves and aligning themselves with Al Qaeda because of the invasion. get it ??

now how many more al qeada attacks world wide since we invaded ? lots more ...............

Report: Global terrorism up more than 25 percent

POSTED: 8:39 p.m. EDT, April 30, 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/index.html

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you only counting attacks on american soil?

How many terrorist attacks on american soil were there since 1950 up until 9/11?

My question was clear, and you could not say none.

Says who? A guy orchestrates this attack and doesn't get caught...and you don't think that alone is not a factor?

He is none factor since we hunted him down.

What a brilliant strategy. Actually, they go to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? The country where there actually WAS an enemy...an enemy that is now taking advantage of our waste of resources in Iraq to come back again.

Yup, and we are still there.

Well, for starters we can start securing our ports and inspecting shipping containers, securing the mexican border, AND the canadian border. I've crossed by water into canada unoticed several times since 9/11. I'm sure someone could do the same from canada to the US. Start a series of background checks for air travel, like the Israelis do. Our secrity is a joke. You could move a whole battalion into this country in a week and probably not be noticed.

Then you don't understand how National Security works, you can't actually watch the millions of people coming in and out of the country since we are in a free society.

Do you think you could have crossed freely had you been associating with suspected terrorist or have some links to illegal purchase of bomb making materials?

It's those shadow warriors that you don't see that is keeping us from being attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you really are slow aren't you ? just because there have been no attacks on american soil by al qeada doesn't mean it was due to the Iraq war . nor is it because of wiretapping !!! the bulk of terrorists in Iraq are not and were not al qeada ! our own military is quoted at 10%. !! not to mention how far away we are !!!

Estimated Numbers of Foreign Fighters.

Although there have been

differences among commanders about the contribution of the foreign fighters to the

overall violence in Iraq, estimates of the numbers of foreign fighters have remained

fairly consistent over time, at least as a percentage of the overall insurgency. As early

as October 2003, U.S. officials estimated that as many as 3,000 might be non-Iraqi,43

although, suggesting uncertainty in the estimate, Gen. Abizaid said on January 29,

2004, that the number of foreign fighters in Iraq was “low” and “in the hundreds.”44

A September 2005 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies

estimated that there were about 3,000 non-Iraqi fighters in Iraq - about 10% of the

estimated total size of the insurgency. In testimony before Congress in January 2007,

the then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (John Negroponte) said that

foreign fighters constitute less than 10% of the insurgents in Iraq. In December 2007,

al-Baghdadi (see above), the Emir (leader) of the Islamic State of Iraq (name used by

AQI, see above) claimed that the Islamic State is almost all Iraqi, and has only 200

foreign fighters.45 However, as noted above, the Islamic State of Iraq was formed

in part to try to portray AQ-I as an Iraqi, not a foreign, organization and many would

argue that the foreign component of the organization is purposely understated by AQI

spokespeople.

Of the approximately 25,000 insurgents in U.S.-led detention in Iraq as of

November 2007, only 290 or 1.2%, were non-Iraqi. This could suggest that the

percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq has dropped, or it could indicate that it has been

harder to capture the foreign fighters than it has been to capture Iraqi insurgents.

Some might argue that the foreign fighters tend to fight to the death rather than allow

themselves to be captured, and that the percentage in detention is not an accurate

indicator of the percentage of foreigners involved in the Iraq insurgency.

Report to Congress April 28 2008 Iraq and Al Qeada

Iraq has drawn terrorism there - it isn't where it came from . what part of that don't you understand ?? get a clue. If we had stayed in Afghanistan and never went into Iraq we'd still be attack free here.

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded. Then sunni's who weren't Al Qeada before we invaded started calling themselves and aligning themselves with Al Qaeda because of the invasion. get it ??

now how many more al qeada attacks world wide since we invaded ? lots more ...............

Report: Global terrorism up more than 25 percent

POSTED: 8:39 p.m. EDT, April 30, 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/index.html

Fine , I am slow. So now can you tell me really slowly how many terrorist are there ever since we went into iRaq, in other words they grew by how much?

You can start by telling us how many terrorist were there before we entered Iraq, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then there was really no reason to invade Iraq, right? You make the point for impeachment. Thanks.

He said, the terrorist who attacked us on 9/11 died, not all those involved. You know, like the mastermind and financiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is none factor since we hunted him down.

He still releases statements, he still emboldons and inspired millions. I would not call that a "none factor."

My question was clear, and you could not say none.

Your question is clear, but it is also clearly narrow and misleading.

Do you think you could have crossed freely had you been associating with suspected terrorist or have some links to illegal purchase of bomb making materials?

It's those shadow warriors that you don't see that is keeping us from being attacked.

Hey, if that helps you sleep at night, then keep believing that by all means.....If these "shadow warriors" (ninjas?) are so good, why am I not allowed to bring aftershave onto a plane in my carry-on baggage? Please.....

and we are still in Afghanistan, but we are understaffed there and the taliban has made a resurgance. A presence that we can't adequately deal with because we are tied up in Iraq. We now have to negotiate with Russia over Georgia from a position of weakness because they know we don't have the muscle to stand up to them, as we are sapped out in Iraq...so i would say we are beginning to see the consequences of going into Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fine , I am slow. So now can you tell me really slowly how many terrorist are there ever since we went into iRaq, in other words they grew by how much?

You can start by telling us how many terrorist were there before we entered Iraq, right?

you mean al qaeda ???? probably close to zero as one could get .. try a bit of education instead of rhetoric.

Declassified Report: No Al Qaeda Link In Pre-War Iraq

Friday September 8, 2006

This is the second in a series of articles reflecting on the state of America since 11 September 2001.

A newly-declassified (but redacted) 400-page Senate Intelligence Committee analysis of pre-war Iraq reports no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It concludes that Hussein "distrusted" al Qaeda and "viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

It includes a CIA determination that prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.'' Instead, he "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi." A US airstrike killed al Zarqawi this summer.

The document is a scathing indictment of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the document which presents a unified (some say political) front, reconciling or brushing over difference of opinion among various intelligence agencies. The NIE was used to justify attacking Iraq in March 2003.

Both post-war and pre-war intelligence show "no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al Qaeda strikes." Nevertheless, Iraq is the most visible -- and costly -- US action since 9-11. In the name of protecting the US against terrorism, far more money is going to Iraq than to this nation's infrastructure.

and fyi just in case

# "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Information obtained after the war supports the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's (INR) assessment in the NIE that the Intelligence Community lacked persuasive evidence that Baghdad had launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program." (p 52)

# "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate judgment that Iraq's acquisition of high strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program. The findings do support the assessments in the NIE of the Department of Engergy's Office of Intelligence and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's (INR) that the aluminum tubes were likely intended for a conventional rocket program." (p 52)

# "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate judgment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious.'" (p 53)

# "No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom." The 2002 NIE, however, asserted that Iraq would "probably attempt clandestine attacks" if Hussein felt threatened. (p 111)

cont .............

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2006/09/08/d...re-war-iraq.htm

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He still releases statements, he still emboldons and inspired millions. I would not call that a "none factor."

Yup, releases them once in a blue moon and the only ones left who gets excited by it are the media and you folks,

Your question is clear, but it is also clearly narrow and misleading.

Like you said, it's clear. Crystal clear actually.

Well? Still can't say, NONE? ;)

Hey, if that helps you sleep at night, then keep believing that by all means.....If these "shadow warriors" (ninjas?) are so good, why am I not allowed to bring aftershave onto a plane in my carry-on baggage? Please.....

Because it can be done and it serves a deterrent, do you think you can actually prevent one aftershave from entering the United States???

and we are still in Afghanistan, but we are understaffed there and the taliban has made a resurgance. A presence that we can't adequately deal with because we are tied up in Iraq. We now have to negotiate with Russia over Georgia from a position of weakness because they know we don't have the muscle to stand up to them, as we are sapped out in Iraq...so i would say we are beginning to see the consequences of going into Iraq.

And had we gone to Afghanistan only, you think we would suddenly put a frontal army against Russia?

And Saddam would still be in power, enriched by the Oil for Food corruption so who knows what new world headache he is up to by now.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why anyone bothers anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, releases them once in a blue moon and the only ones left who gets excited by it are the media and you folks,

He's a hero to these people. He spit in the eye of the US, he proved that we could be attacked and that you could get away with it. They call him "The lion of Islam" and he's become a figurehead for fundamentalist Islam. If that means nothing to you, it certainly means something to fundamentalist muslims.

There have been no attacks on domestic soil since 9/11. There also have been no aligator attacks in NYC either. So clearly, going to Iraq keeps New Yorkers safe from aligator attacks, right?

Because it can be done and it serves a deterrent, do you think you can actually prevent one aftershave from entering the United States???

Wait, are you honestly trying to get us to believe that going through people's carry on luggage and taking away aftershave makes us one iota safer? I thought there were "shadow warriors" who would swarm all over me if I was a bad guy and tried to land a boat in canada (as I've done a few times). But they apparently need someone to keep hair gel of the planes? So to sum up your point, "shadow warriors" (are they like demons or elves or something?) know all the potential terrorists here, so that's why I can land a boat in canada, but they apparently still are unsure enough that they need someone taking away toothpaste and hair gel from me at the airport....

If they are so good, wouldn't they just let me go by without checking my carry on? I mean, they knew I was safe enough to land a boat in canada, but not safe enough to let me keep my hair gel?

And had we gone to Afghanistan only, you think we would suddenly put a frontal army against Russia?

Had we stabilized afghanistan and kept out of Iraq, we would still have a bit of muscle left, a little leverage. As of now, thanks to Iraq, we are having trouble keeping people in the army, we are broke and in severe debt, and our once mighty military reputation is a joke. Russia is less afraid of us now then they ever have been. We are negotiating from a position of weakness, because of Iraq.

And Saddam would still be in power, enriched by the Oil for Food corruption so who knows what new world headache he is up to by now.

I'm sorry, what "world headaches" did he cause before? You mean keeping a volitile "country" that is younger than Paul Newman stable? Keeping Iran off balance and countered? Keeping fundamentalist muslims hiding in fear in Iraq and keeping their clergy out of power? Those are all good things. Things that are not happening any longer.

Iraq is NOT stable, and the Middle East is even less stable

Iran is rising, without Iraq to keep them down. In fact, they are cooperating. This has been the US's worst fear since the 1970's when the Shah was deposed

Fundamentalist clerics in Iraq are getting voted into office. (remember, those are the bad guys.)

Why didn't GH Bush go into Iraq after chasing them out of Kuwait? because he had more sense than his arrogant and ignorant son did, and he listened to the people who tried to tell GW what would, and is, happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He said, the terrorist who attacked us on 9/11 died, not all those involved. You know, like the mastermind and financiers.

Some of those financiers was saudia arbia, and possible iraq indirectly of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you mean al qaeda ???? probably close to zero as one could get .. try a bit of education instead of rhetoric.

Declassified Report: No Al Qaeda Link In Pre-War Iraq

Friday September 8, 2006

This is the second in a series of articles reflecting on the state of America since 11 September 2001.

A newly-declassified (but redacted) 400-page Senate Intelligence Committee analysis of pre-war Iraq reports no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It concludes that Hussein "distrusted" al Qaeda and "viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

It includes a CIA determination that prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.'' Instead, he "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi." A US airstrike killed al Zarqawi this summer.

The document is a scathing indictment of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the document which presents a unified (some say political) front, reconciling or brushing over difference of opinion among various intelligence agencies. The NIE was used to justify attacking Iraq in March 2003.

Both post-war and pre-war intelligence show "no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al Qaeda strikes." Nevertheless, Iraq is the most visible -- and costly -- US action since 9-11. In the name of protecting the US against terrorism, far more money is going to Iraq than to this nation's infrastructure.

and fyi just in case

Wait a minute here, I thought these were Insurgents and not terrorist?

You alway argue that they are Insurgents who just want the USA out of their country, right?

How can you say now they are terrorist when you call them Insurgents or Iraqi freedom fighters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's a hero to these people. He spit in the eye of the US, he proved that we could be attacked and that you could get away with it. They call him "The lion of Islam" and he's become a figurehead for fundamentalist Islam. If that means nothing to you, it certainly means something to fundamentalist muslims.

Really now, a Lion who leads by hiding? :huh:

The more he hides the greater of a hero he becomes?

There have been no attacks on domestic soil since 9/11. There also have been no aligator attacks in NYC either. So clearly, going to Iraq keeps New Yorkers safe from aligator attacks, right?

No, going to Iraq does not keep New Yorkers safe from alligators. You see, Alligators are found in florida, not in Iaq.

But terrorist can be found in the Middle East.

Wait, are you honestly trying to get us to believe that going through people's carry on luggage and taking away aftershave makes us one iota safer? I thought there were "shadow warriors" who would swarm all over me if I was a bad guy and tried to land a boat in canada (as I've done a few times). But they apparently need someone to keep hair gel of the planes? So to sum up your point, "shadow warriors" (are they like demons or elves or something?) know all the potential terrorists here, so that's why I can land a boat in canada, but they apparently still are unsure enough that they need someone taking away toothpaste and hair gel from me at the airport....

If they are so good, wouldn't they just let me go by without checking my carry on? I mean, they knew I was safe enough to land a boat in canada, but not safe enough to let me keep my hair gel?

AGAIN, would be very tough to guard the entire American borders, so the shadow warriors try to Indentify foreigners who have links with known or suspected terrorist. But easier to monitor those getting in planes. By the way, why don't you find yourself an airline who does not screen any passengers and enjoy your hazzle free boarding.

Shadow warriors are those who gets no applause, interview or ends up in commercials when they get their job done.

Intelligence in simple terms.

e stabilized afghanistan and kept out of Iraq, we would still have a bit of muscle left, a little leverage. As of now, thanks to Iraq, we are having trouble keeping people in the army, we are broke and in severe debt, and our once mighty military reputation is a joke. Russia is less afraid of us now then they ever have been. We are negotiating from a position of weakness, because of Iraq.

Those are your Opinion, but how many actually would really want to take on the US MIlitary Force and expect to win against it?

Russia? We will wipe out Russia's Air Force easily, and our Main Battle Tanks are superior to theirs.

A couple of Aircraft Carrier Battle group will be enough to deliver a big punch against Iran.

I'm sorry, what "world headaches" did he cause before? You mean keeping a volitile "country" that is younger than Paul Newman stable? Keeping Iran off balance and countered? Keeping fundamentalist muslims hiding in fear in Iraq and keeping their clergy out of power? Those are all good things. Things that are not happening any longer.

Iraq is NOT stable, and the Middle East is even less stable

Iran is rising, without Iraq to keep them down. In fact, they are cooperating. This has been the US's worst fear since the 1970's when the Shah was deposed

Fundamentalist clerics in Iraq are getting voted into office. (remember, those are the bad guys.)

Was the Middle East stable then?

Iran is all MOUTH, and it will be all mout for it knows one aggresive move from them and Israel alone will handle them.

Why didn't GH Bush go into Iraq after chasing them out of Kuwait? because he had more sense than his arrogant and ignorant son did, and he listened to the people who tried to tell GW what would, and is, happening.

GH Bush did not have to react to 3,000 dead Civilian Americans in one day.

What you don't understand is the terrorist never really stopped when our repsond to attacks before were mere words and condemnation.

Now if the terrorist are planning to strike us again if you ask me I will tell warn them now we hit again and we will invade Syria next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really now, a Lion who leads by hiding? :huh:

The more he hides the greater of a hero he becomes?

George Washington/Nathaniel Greene

Mao tse-Tung

William Quantrill

Ho Chi Minh

Charles de Gaulle

Toussaint Louverture

Just a few famous leaders off the top of my head that fought by hiding and/or guerrilla war, and all revered by their followers. I'm not saying that bin Laden has been or will be as successful as any of these men, but the fact is many leaders have risen to fame (and sometimes success) through leading by hiding. I don't know if we should just ignore what he's capable of.

I can't help but wonder if you would shrug bin Laden off as a non-factor if the Democrats had been in charge during all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GH Bush did not have to react to 3,000 dead Civilian Americans in one day.

Oh, I see. I should have guessed. You are apparently one of those people who think Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

What you don't understand is the terrorist never really stopped when our repsond to attacks before were mere words and condemnation.

What you don't understand is that the terrroist attacks have still not stopped.

Now if the terrorist are planning to strike us again if you ask me I will tell warn them now we hit again and we will invade Syria next.

With WHAT ARMY? Are we going to initiate a draft? Go further into debt, weaken our miliatry further by spreading out into yet another unholdable territory? How are we going to invade and hold syria when we can't even hold Iraq and Afghanistan?

Those are your Opinion, but how many actually would really want to take on the US MIlitary Force and expect to win against it?

You seem to be under the delusion that we are still a superpower. We are a housewife who can't stop running up the credit cards or running off her mouth. We are not the invincible juggernaut we were from 1950-2000. That era is over. The problem is, our mouth is still writing checks our *** can't cash without a draft or a real mobilization of industry for war. The problem is, we can't mobilize our industry for war....because it's all in china.

Edited by Neognosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
George Washington/Nathaniel Greene

Mao tse-Tung

William Quantrill

Ho Chi Minh

Charles de Gaulle

Toussaint Louverture

Just a few famous leaders off the top of my head that fought by hiding and/or guerrilla war, and all revered by their followers. I'm not saying that bin Laden has been or will be as successful as any of these men, but the fact is many leaders have risen to fame (and sometimes success) through leading by hiding. I don't know if we should just ignore what he's capable of.

I can't help but wonder if you would shrug bin Laden off as a non-factor if the Democrats had been in charge during all of this.

These people didn't hide, everyone knew they were alive, active and leading a certain organization or a rebellion, they just don't make a daily announcement of where they are which is normal when you have enemies.

While Bin Laden is just like Saddam, when things got tough he was found in a fox hole hiding. A lion???

If the Democrats are in charge now, I don't think Bin Laden would even be hiding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I see. I should have guessed. You are apparently one of those people who think Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Iraq was causing world instability, apparently you are one of those who thinks you got Saddam contained and can do so forever.

What you don't understand is that the terrroist attacks have still not stopped.

Oh yeah, they are still out there, that is why we are going after them.

With WHAT ARMY? Are we going to initiate a draft? Go further into debt, weaken our miliatry further by spreading out into yet another unholdable territory? How are we going to invade and hold syria when we can't even hold Iraq and Afghanistan?

Syria is just next to Iraq, couple of Tank division should do the job and one Carrier Battle group, we just hit them and then leave. Or maybe we strike Iran, just create bigger damage everytime a terrorist hits us.

You seem to be under the delusion that we are still a superpower. We are a housewife who can't stop running up the credit cards or running off her mouth. We are not the invincible juggernaut we were from 1950-2000. That era is over. The problem is, our mouth is still writing checks our *** can't cash without a draft or a real mobilization of industry for war. The problem is, we can't mobilize our industry for war....because it's all in china.

Come on, you would not have been so worried about governemnt spending if the Democrats would over spend on entitlements.

And we always hear these doom and gloom whenever the Democrats don't have the White house.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.