Why don't you look into the bombings of London and Madrid. Shouldn't take that long on the internet. Both of these two cells' attacks were directly related to Iraq. I posted this up on this thread already. The people in Madrid heard two announcements by Bin Laden about how Spain must be punished for helping the U.S. in Iraq and began planning their attack the next day. The group in London had similar inspiration for England's participation in Iraq.
and i suppose if not for that they would be tending their olive trees and minding their own business leading happy and productive lives?
Also look at what I posted earlier about Islamic web sites and their pronouncements. They're happy as hell about Iraq. It not only allows them to kill Americans in their own back yard, but it can also humiliate the U.S. in the international community. They were really down after Afghanistan, now they're happy as well.
Im not much concerned with how happy or sad they are.
Also in that previous post I talked about 2 studies of foreign fighters in Iraq. One from Saudia Arabia and the other from Israel. Both found that almost everyone going over to Iraq had never been radicals before, but were radicalized by the invasion.
if you posted the sources in the earlier post, please post again.
Plus you're changing your starting point from post to post about the war on terror. Fist you said, I'm forgetting the 1993 WTC bombing. Then when I included it on whether we're winning the war on terror or not, you said it and 9/11 were too far apart. Now you're saying we need to go years back to see the beginning of Islamic terrorism and its progression.
I didnt know we had a starting point. My point in the first post was that someone said we were not attacked prior to 9/11. In the second post, I never said they were too far apart, what I questioned was where you got your figure that more US citizens were killed after 9/11 than before. And in the previous post, I made the point that a causal relationship between 9/11 and the rise in islamic terror was not as nice and neat as you make it out to be.
its been a pleasure reading your record reviews. however, your analysis of "The War" is taxing. theres no need for me to enter your duel with sabadaba b/c I like chuckling at the screen which typing prevents me from doing. why am i writing this. aah
1. learn arabic and islam. didn't someone on the board know taliban john walker's brother. majic jackson maybe? that dude is crazy, but good people it seems. im sure he'd (TJ walk) would be a great place to start to get the 'real story'. your sources need more polydynamism. or am i wrong? its like : i can read all the reviews i want but never understand the sound until i listen to the real thang so for me to to act like i know about a song based on your review is
I would be happy to start from whatever date you want to throw in (even though Islamicized terrorism, as opposed to Arab/Palenstinian nationalist terror, in the West really begins in earnest with the revolution in Iran).
So you are saying that the increase in deadliness and frequency of the attacks is just part of the normal progression of terrorism since some point in time which we have not yet established?
Oh and just a point of reference the Spain and Britain attacks were not made by some goat herders from the Negev but rather by city dwellers some of whom were citizens of the countries they attacked.
I would be happy to start from whatever date you want to throw in (even though Islamicized terrorism, as opposed to Arab/Palenstinian nationalist terror, in the West really begins in earnest with the revolution in Iran).
Either Munich Olympics or the 79 Iranian Revolution.
So you are saying that the increase in deadliness and frequency of the attacks is just part of the normal progression of terrorism since some point in time which we have not yet established?
yes. in large part, coupled with the lack of a resolute American response.
Oh and just a point of reference the Spain and Britain attacks were not made by some goat herders from the Negev but rather by city dwellers some of whom were citizens of the countries they attacked.
We can talk about how fucked Europe is going to be in the next 25 years in another post.
you would make a good lawyer because you're always trying to get me to commit to your paraphrasing what I say, only a little differently.
Why don't you look into the bombings of London and Madrid. Shouldn't take that long on the internet. Both of these two cells' attacks were directly related to Iraq. I posted this up on this thread already. The people in Madrid heard two announcements by Bin Laden about how Spain must be punished for helping the U.S. in Iraq and began planning their attack the next day. The group in London had similar inspiration for England's participation in Iraq.
and i suppose if not for that they would be tending their olive trees and minding their own business leading happy and productive lives?
One was getting his PhD in economics I think, one was a drug dealer, one was a teacher, etc. Only one out of the 15 in Madrid had been in an Islamist group before. Do have evidence to the contrary that they were NOT radicalized by the invasion of Iraq. The research and background to the Madrid bombing are pretty detailed.
Also look at what I posted earlier about Islamic web sites and their pronouncements. They're happy as hell about Iraq. It not only allows them to kill Americans in their own back yard, but it can also humiliate the U.S. in the international community. They were really down after Afghanistan, now they're happy as well.
Im not much concerned with how happy or sad they are.
So if the invasion of Afghanistan was working and had made the Islamsits feel defeated that doesn't matter?
Also in that previous post I talked about 2 studies of foreign fighters in Iraq. One from Saudia Arabia and the other from Israel. Both found that almost everyone going over to Iraq had never been radicals before, but were radicalized by the invasion.
if you posted the sources in the earlier post, please post again.
Don't be lazy. Go back to page 4.
I didnt know we had a starting point. My point in the first post was that someone said we were not attacked prior to 9/11. In the second post, I never said they were too far apart, what I questioned was where you got your figure that more US citizens were killed after 9/11 than before. And in the previous post, I made the point that a causal relationship between 9/11 and the rise in islamic terror was not as nice and neat as you make it out to be.
You're getting me and Dr. Wu confused. That's the basis for the problem.
If you look from the Clinton administraiton to the present day as the time that we've been fighting Al Qaeda there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Islamist terrorist attacks after 9/11. That would be a simple time frame because we're only talking about 1 group.
One was getting his PhD in economics I think, one was a drug dealer, one was a teacher[/b],
FIGURES!! Probably high school
So if the invasion of Afghanistan was working and had made the Islamsits feel defeated that doesn't matter?
I'd rather they feel dead.
If you look from the Clinton administraiton to the present day as the time that we've been fighting Al Qaeda there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Islamist terrorist attacks after 9/11. That would be a simple time frame because we're only talking about 1 group.
Its because now we're fighting back. Would you consider it a fair trade, if for the next 20 years there wasn't a single attack, and then they blew up an atom bomb on the Lexington Avenue local?
Anyone with more on the bounties or if Sababaloo would like to knowledge us about Saddam's ties to other terrorist groups, please feel free to chime in.
Why don't you look into the bombings of London and Madrid. Shouldn't take that long on the internet. Both of these two cells' attacks were directly related to Iraq. I posted this up on this thread already. The people in Madrid heard two announcements by Bin Laden about how Spain must be punished for helping the U.S. in Iraq and began planning their attack the next day. The group in London had similar inspiration for England's participation in Iraq.
and i suppose if not for that they would be tending their olive trees and minding their own business leading happy and productive lives?
One was getting his PhD in economics I think, one was a drug dealer, one was a teacher, etc. Only one out of the 15 in Madrid had been in an Islamist group before. Do have evidence to the contrary that they were NOT radicalized by the invasion of Iraq. The research and background to the Madrid bombing are pretty detailed.
motown, you are unhappy about the invasion of iraq, does that justify you if you blow something up because of that unhappiness? the link between someone blowing something or someone up because of iraq is the weakest agrugment against the invasion of iraq, and is apologizing for cold blooded murder.
Anyone with more on the bounties or if Sababaloo would like to knowledge us about Saddam's ties to other terrorist groups, please feel free to chime in.
Both of those guys were basically retired and living out their lives in Iraq. Not only that, but one of them got killed, probably by Saddam, before the U.S. invasion happened so what does that say about his relationship with international terrorism? The last terrorist act either one of those guys did was kill a member of Arafat's Fatah organization in the mid-1990s.
Richard Clarke, the CIA, and the State Department all said that Iraq had not been connected with any anti-Western terrosim since 1993 when they planned on killing the 1st Bush while he was on a trip to Kuwait.
If you're talking about terrorism in general, they gave money to people who were suicide bombers in Israel and they also killed a bunch of Iraqi exiles who were against Saddam. That's about it.
Why don't you look into the bombings of London and Madrid. Shouldn't take that long on the internet. Both of these two cells' attacks were directly related to Iraq. I posted this up on this thread already. The people in Madrid heard two announcements by Bin Laden about how Spain must be punished for helping the U.S. in Iraq and began planning their attack the next day. The group in London had similar inspiration for England's participation in Iraq.
and i suppose if not for that they would be tending their olive trees and minding their own business leading happy and productive lives?
One was getting his PhD in economics I think, one was a drug dealer, one was a teacher, etc. Only one out of the 15 in Madrid had been in an Islamist group before. Do have evidence to the contrary that they were NOT radicalized by the invasion of Iraq. The research and background to the Madrid bombing are pretty detailed.
motown, you are unhappy about the invasion of iraq, does that justify you if you blow something up because of that unhappiness? the link between someone blowing something or someone up because of iraq is the weakest agrugment against the invasion of iraq, and is apologizing for cold blooded murder.
No, but I'm trying to point out that a new generation of Islamists has been created because of the invasion of Iraq. So if the invasion was about the war on terrorism, than creating more terrorists doesn't really seem to be helping the situation now is it?
And if you've read anything I've posted about Iraq you'd know I have a number of complaints about the invasion beginning with the false pretenses for the war, the failure to plan for after the war, the continued fuck ups in the country since then, etc. etc.
But I forgot, according to you we've actually won the Iraq war against the insurgents how many times now? 3 or something after Fallujah and the 1st election and ....
So if the invasion of Afghanistan was working and had made the Islamsits feel defeated that doesn't matter?
I'd rather they feel dead.
That's what we did in Afghanistan I thought? Invaded, overthrew the Taliban and killed a bunch of them. Hence their feeling of defeat. But I forgot, ONLY the U.S. homeland matters. Great way to discount an actual success in the war on terror. I guess you can only support certain Bush administration policies.
[quote No, but I'm trying to point out that a new generation of Islamists has been created because of the invasion of Iraq. Is it possible that a new generation of Americans has been created by 9/11?
And since Sabada is probably "too busy" to look for himself, here's a re-post on the two studies of foreign fighters going to Iraq.
2 studies of these foreign fighters found that they had all been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being Islamists beforehand.
An Israeli scholar Reuven Paz analyzed the biographies of 154 foreign fighters killed in Iraq. ???The vast majority of [non-Iraqis] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.??? According to Paz, these young men felt that the U.S. invasion was part of a war on Islam and that they had to act.
Another study for Saudi researcher Nawaf Obaid done for the Washington based Center For Strategic and International Studies looked at Saudies who had gone to fight in Iraq found similar things. The Saudis in the study had been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being radical Islamists beforehand. Obaid looked at 300 Saudis captured in Iraq and three dozen others who had killed themselves in suicide attacks. ???The largest group is young kids who saw the images [of the war] on TV and are reading the stuff on the Internet. Or they see the name of a cousin on the list or a guy who belongs to their tribe, and they feel a responsibility to go.???
And since Sabada is probably "too busy" to look for himself, here's a re-post on the two studies of foreign fighters going to Iraq.
2 studies of these foreign fighters found that they had all been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being Islamists beforehand.
An Israeli scholar Reuven Paz analyzed the biographies of 154 foreign fighters killed in Iraq. ???The vast majority of [non-Iraqis] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.??? According to Paz, these young men felt that the U.S. invasion was part of a war on Islam and that they had to act.
Another study for Saudi researcher Nawaf Obaid done for the Washington based Center For Strategic and International Studies looked at Saudies who had gone to fight in Iraq found similar things. The Saudis in the study had been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being radical Islamists beforehand. Obaid looked at 300 Saudis captured in Iraq and three dozen others who had killed themselves in suicide attacks. ???The largest group is young kids who saw the images [of the war] on TV and are reading the stuff on the Internet. Or they see the name of a cousin on the list or a guy who belongs to their tribe, and they feel a responsibility to go.???
the3rdstream, do these guys count as making excuses for murder as well?
And since Sabada is probably "too busy" to look for himself, here's a re-post on the two studies of foreign fighters going to Iraq.
2 studies of these foreign fighters found that they had all been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being Islamists beforehand.
An Israeli scholar Reuven Paz analyzed the biographies of 154 foreign fighters killed in Iraq. ???The vast majority of [non-Iraqis] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.??? According to Paz, these young men felt that the U.S. invasion was part of a war on Islam and that they had to act.
Another study for Saudi researcher Nawaf Obaid done for the Washington based Center For Strategic and International Studies looked at Saudies who had gone to fight in Iraq found similar things. The Saudis in the study had been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being radical Islamists beforehand. Obaid looked at 300 Saudis captured in Iraq and three dozen others who had killed themselves in suicide attacks. ???The largest group is young kids who saw the images [of the war] on TV and are reading the stuff on the Internet. Or they see the name of a cousin on the list or a guy who belongs to their tribe, and they feel a responsibility to go.???
the3rdstream, do these guys count as making excuses for murder as well?
motown, if you reread my post i was talking about the bombers in madrid and and london, not insurgents in iraq
But I forgot, according to you we've actually lost the Iraq war against the insurgents how many times now? 38 or something after Fallujah and the 1st election and ....
And since Sabada is probably "too busy" to look for himself, here's a re-post on the two studies of foreign fighters going to Iraq.
2 studies of these foreign fighters found that they had all been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being Islamists beforehand.
An Israeli scholar Reuven Paz analyzed the biographies of 154 foreign fighters killed in Iraq. ???The vast majority of [non-Iraqis] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.??? According to Paz, these young men felt that the U.S. invasion was part of a war on Islam and that they had to act.
Another study for Saudi researcher Nawaf Obaid done for the Washington based Center For Strategic and International Studies looked at Saudies who had gone to fight in Iraq found similar things. The Saudis in the study had been radicalized by the Iraqi invasion, rather than being radical Islamists beforehand. Obaid looked at 300 Saudis captured in Iraq and three dozen others who had killed themselves in suicide attacks. ???The largest group is young kids who saw the images [of the war] on TV and are reading the stuff on the Internet. Or they see the name of a cousin on the list or a guy who belongs to their tribe, and they feel a responsibility to go.???
the3rdstream, do these guys count as making excuses for murder as well?
motown, if you reread my post i was talking about the bombers in madrid and and london, not insurgents in iraq
So these two researches are saying that Iraq has radicalized a new generation of Muslims and led them to go to Iraq to fight America. The war in Iraq also apparently radicalized these guys in London and Madrid to attack the governments there. The guys in London and Madrid carried out devastating terrorist attacks, and the Saudis are the largest group to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. So they're not comparable?
Again, in both cases I think there's good evidence to say that Iraq has created a new generation of people willing to kill Americans and westerners for their cause.
Wars have a huge impact on people both within and without the country.
The literature on the Islamist movement all pretty much agrees that Afghanistan was a turning point. Not ony did it radicalize Muslims around the world, a lot of them went to Afghanistan to fight against the Russians and won. They met a lot of like minded people, networked, created base camps, went back to their homelands and caused havoc. The most famous of these individuals in Bin Laden himself.
People seem to think that Iraq is somehow different.
But I forgot, according to you we've actually lost the Iraq war against the insurgents how many times now? 38 or something after Fallujah and the 1st election and ....
Again, I would suggest you go back and review my previous posts. Besides the insurgents successful bombings of the oil infrastructure, most of what I've written about is how the U.S. fucked up during the planning for the war, the failure of planning afterwards, the abuses by the Shiites and Kurds, the failure of the elections to forge national consensus, etc.
You know, even Vitamin in his last post on the subject said that he felt like the U.S. was losing in Iraq.
Here's a rundown of the relevant intelligence information that the Bush administraiton had compared to their public statements about Iraq, Al Qaeda and Terrorism. I cold post up every single statement and report, but that would be almost 20 pages and no one wants to read all that. Read through the timeline and compare what the Bush administration was saying compared to the intelligence on the matter. What did the Bush administration have to base its claims upon?
1994 and 1995 - Intelligence[/b]
3 meetings between Al Qaeda and Iraq in Sudan. Met to discuss mutual dislike of Saudi Arabia. Iraq agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi speech that bin Laden had given. Bin Laden asked for help with training camps and buying weapons but Iraq ignored it. Post-War U.S. commissions believe that these meetings led to no cooperation.
1996 - Intelligence[/b]
Al Qaeda and Iraq met again in Afghanistan but nothing came of it.
CIA report that Iraq had given Al Qaeda bomb training.
1998 - Intelligence[/b]
National Security Council intelligence review of Iraq found no relationship with Al Qaeda.
April 2001 - Intelligence[/b]
Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke gives 1st briefing to new Bush Administration on terrorism. Focuses on Al Qaeda.
State Department???s annual report on terrorism said that Iraq supported terrorism, but that it was mostly against Iraqi exiles. Didn???t find any anti-Western terrorism since 1993 when tried to assassinate ex-Pres. Bush.
Administration[/b]
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz questions why Clarke spent so much time on Al Qaeda. Wolfowitz wanted to talk about Iraq???s support of terrorism and claimed that Al Qaeda was linked with Sadam. Wolfowitz claimed Iraq behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Clarke told him there was no connection.
9/11/01 - Administration[/b]
Within 5 hours of 9/11 attack Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld wanted to see whether Iraq was behind the attack. Told Wolfowitz to look into Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Also suggested that U.S. attack Iraq as well as Al Qaeda as response to 9/11.
9/12/01 - Intelligence[/b]
Clarke gave briefing to White House on Al Qaeda. Said that Al Qaeda independent and Iraq not behind 9/11.
On the insistence of President Bush, Clarke and the FBI wrote a report on Iraq, Al Qaeda and 9/11. They found no connection.
Administration[/b]
Neoconservatives in White House tried to link Iraq with Al Qaeda and 9/11. Bush pulled over Clarke personally and asked him to look into Iraq and 9/11. Clarke told Bush that there was no connection.
Either National Security Advisor Rice or her deputy Stephen Hadley rejected the Clarke/FBI report and told them to do it again because it found no evidence of a connection. In his book, Clarke wrote, ???Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.???
9/13/01 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA and FBI had previously said that Iraq was not involved in 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Administration[/b]
Wolfowitz asked officials if Iraq was connected to 9/11. He began lobbying Vice President Cheney that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Also came to believe that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center based upon a book. Wolfowitz sent former CIA chief James Woolsey to Europe to investigate claims but found nothing. Wolfowitz also asked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to look into book???s claim. DIA told him that Islamists not Iraq behind 1993 bombing. Wolfowitz told DIA they had to prove that the book was true. They never did.
9/15/01 - Administration[/b]
Bush held national security meeting to discuss responses to 9/11. Wolfowitz made unsupported claim that there was a 10-50% chance that Iraq was behind 9/11 and that Iraq had to be the focus of the war on terror. Secretary of State Powell argued that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
9/17/01 - Administration[/b]
At National Security Council meeting Bush said he believed Iraq connected to 9/11 but didn???t have evidence to justify an attack yet.
9/19/02 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA report ???Iraqi Support for Terrorism??? said that Iraq would not conduct terrorist attacks out of fear that it would lead to a U.S. attack
9/21/02 - Intelligence[/b]
During Bush???s Daily Briefing U.S. intelligence tells him that there is no evidence that Iraq was connected with 9/11. Also told that little collaboration between the two. Iraq saw Al Qaeda as a potential threat because of its radical ideology and had attempted to infiltrate it to keep tabs on its activities. Briefing was prepared at the request of Bush. Daily Brief was later turned into a longer intelligence assessment on Iraq and terrorism and given to Bush, Cheney, National Security Advisor Ricer, her Deputy Stephen Hadley, Rumsfeld and his undersecretaries, and other policy makers.
Fall 2001 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA & FBI both claim that Mohammad Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers, did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001. Claim was refuted several more times by U.S. intelligence
Administration[/b]
White House officials try to confirm whether 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
10/01 - Intelligence[/b]
Defense Department created the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group to give its own intelligence analysis of terrorism. Concluded that divisions within the Muslim world were breaking down and that allowed groups like Iraq and Al Qaeda who had opposing views to work together.
10/1/02 - Intelligence[/b]
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq said that it would not use terrorists because it could lead to war with U.S. NIE also said that Saddam kept tight control over his WMD and would only use them on the battlefield, not give them to terrorists.
11/01 - Intelligence[/b]
Czech Prime Minister told administration officials about Spring 2001 meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence.
U.S. soldiers found documents in Afghanistan that Al Qaeda was trying to acquire WMD.
Administration[/b]
Vice President Cheney went on TV and said that 9/11 hijacker Atta met with Iraqi intelligence
White House reported soldiers' findings and claimed that Iraq was the easiest place for Al Qaeda to get WMD.
12/01 - Intelligence[/b]
Czech Interior Minister gave more details on Atta meeting to U.S. Claim made by Arab student in Prague who was considered unreliable. Czech President Havel didn???t believe report. CIA and FBI didn???t either. Had credit card receipt from Atta in Florida on day of on the alleged meetings.
12/9/01 - Administration[/b]
Cheney repeated Atta claim to Meet The Pres
1/02 - Intelligence[/b]
Undersecretary of Defense Feith had DIA look at 6/21/02 CIA report that found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. DIA criticized CIA report and Feith passed findings onto Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
Defense Department???s Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group criticized the CIA???s intelligence because it found contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda but no cooperation. Group claimed that there was cooperation.
2/02 - Intelligence[/b]
State Department???s annual report on terrorism found no connection between Iraq and 9/11 and Al Qaeda. Did say that Atta claim was under investigation. CIA Chief George Tenet said that Iraq was not responsible for any anti-Western terrorism since 1993.
Captive Al Qaeda member claims that Iraq had given Al Qaeda training in bomb making and poison making. Defense Int
elligence Agency (DIA) issues report that they think he???s lying. Report also questioned whether Iraq would ever cooperate with Al Qaeda.
3/17/02 - Administration[/b]
British Ambassador to the U.S. Christopher Meyer met with Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz said there were questions about whether 9/11 hijacker Atta met with Iraq intelligence in Prague. Asked if British had any new information. Wolfowitz also said that Iraq behind the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, even though his own investigation in 2001 found no evidence.
6/12/02 - Intelligence[/b]
White House asked for an intelligence report on Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. CIA found contacts, but no cooperation.
7/22/02 - Intelligence[/b]
Defense Department???s Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group created briefing for the administration on Iraq-Al Qaeda links. Claimed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqis, that Iraq and Al Qaeda had cooperated on 9/11 attack, that two had worked on WMD, and that therefore the U.S. should attack Iraq. Group told Rumsfeld that CIA???s opinion that Iraq-Al Qaeda not connected ought to be ignored.
8/02 - Administration[/b]
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld claimed there were Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq that the Iraqi government knew about.
8/20/02 - Intelligence[/b]
Intelligence meeting between intelligence community and the Defense Department???s Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. Group argued for inclusion of Atta claim in intelligence report, but was rejected.
8/21/02 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. intelligence began investigating connections between Islamist group Ansar Al Islam in Kurdish northern Iraq and Al Qaeda and Iraqi government. Evidence that Ansar sent fighters of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan from 1999-2000. Also said that Al Qaeda fighters had fled to Ansar camps in Iraq after U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
Administration[/b]
Rumsfeld would make a public statement saying that Ansar Al Islam couldn???t be taking in Al Qaeda fighters without the Iraqi government knowing.
9/02 - Intelligence[/b]
FBI assistant director for counterterrorism Pat D???Amuro tells Wolfowitz that meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta and Iraqis didn???t happen. Wolfowitz pressured him to at least acknowledge that the meeting was possible.
9/2/02 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. intelligence claimed that Al Qaeda operatives had fled Afghanistan after invasion and settled in Northern Iraq with Ansar Al-Islam. Report said that, ???The Al Qaeda people are not official guests of the Iraqi government.???
Administration[/b]
Administration begins leaking stories to the media that Ansar Al-Islam was part of Al Qaeda and that they were operating in Iraq.
9/3/02 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. intelligence interrogates two captured Al Qaeda operatives. One who was Al Qaeda???s Chief of Operations said that bin Laden was opposed to cooperation with Iraq. Other said that Al Qaeda members had gone to Iraq in December 2000 training. The second captive had been labeled a liar by the DIA in February 2002 but his clams were still used in intelligence reports.
9/25-9/26/02 - Administration[/b]
Bush told reporters, ???You can???t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.??? Rice claimed there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda establishing a relationship on PBS??? Newshour, including operatives fleeing to northern Iraq after Afghanistan invasion. Rumsfeld told reporters that Al Qaeda had tried to acquire WMD from Iraq and that two had contracts going back a decade. Was probably referring to Ansar Al Islam about WMD.
10/1/02 - Intelligence[/b]
National Intelligence Estimate said that Iraq would only give WMDs to terrorists in extreme conditions. Mentioned 1994 and 1995 meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda in Sudan, but that those led to nothing. Also noted reports that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda in bomb and poison making but it had not been confirmed. Predicted that a U.S. attack on Iraq would lead to cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda over their common enemy, America.
10/7/02 - Intelligence[/b]
Intelligence community came to the conclusion that Abu Zarqawi was not a member of Al Qaeda. Said that he led his own terrorist organization that occasionally cooperated with Al Qaeda.
Administration[/b]
Bush gives speech in Cincinnati. Claimed ???Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poison and deadly gases.??? Bush claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda had ???high-level contacts that go back a decade,??? and Abu Zarqawi was an Al Qaeda leader, and that he had received medical treatment in Baghdad in 2002.
10/14/02 - Administration[/b]
Bush gave speech where he claimed Iraq was using Al Qaeda as its ???forward army??? in a new war.
1/03 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA made revised report on Iraq and terrorism saying that they couldn???t find links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Stated that Iraq didn???t know about 9/11. Also that Saddam???s opposition to Saudi Wahabism, which Al Qaeda followed, made cooperation difficult. CIA interviewed two senior Al Qaeda leaders in custody about Iraq connections. They said there was no alliance. They did say that terrorist Abu Zarqawi had a good relationship with Iraq, but that bin Laden wouldn???t have agreed to an alliance with Iraq. Said that Zarqawi had been in Iraq since May 2002 with Iraqi knowledge. Reviewed claims that Al Qaeda and Iraq had met after mid-90s contacts in Sudan. Found that the reports were not reliable. Found that reports of Iraq training Al Qaeda turned out to be Al Qaeda asking for Iraqi training, which never happened. Uncorroborated reports that Iraq training Al Qaeda at Salman Pak counterterrorism training camp. Went over claims that Iraq had offered bin Laden safe haven in Iraq in 1998 and 1999 although one of those reports also said Iraq had rejected the offer. Found that Iraq had not cooperated in any Al Qaeda terrorist acts. Said that 100-200 Al Qaeda operatives had joined Ansar Al-Islam in Kurdish northern Iraq since Fall of 2001. Iraq probably knew about their presence and allowed it. In the end, report concluded that Iraq might use terrorism if attacked, but no intelligence to support the claim. Said that Iraq supported and provided safe haven to various terrorist groups, mostly Palestinians, most of which had been inactive since the early 1990s. Iraq had given millions to Palestinian suicide bombers. Also had tried to reach out to newer Palestinian terrorist groups but failed. Iraq also supported an anti-Iranian group. Report said that if Iraq was to carry out terrorist attacks it would use its own intelligence service, which it had done in the past, not independent terrorist groups.
1/28/03 - Administration[/b]
In Bush???s State of the Union address he said that Iraq aids and protects Al Qaeda.
2/03 - Intelligence[/b]
Revised CIA report on Iraq and terrorism said that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta never met with Iraqis in Prague in 2001.
Administration[/b]
Vice President Cheney???s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby tried to get Atta claim included in Secretary of State Powell???s U.N. speech but Powell rejected it as unconfirmed.
2/5/03 - Intelligence[/b]
Defense Intelligence Agency interviewed Iraqi defector provided by the Iraqi National Congress who claimed that Iraq had given WMD training to Al Qaeda. When interviewed by the CIA he changed his story saying that he had trained Saddam Fedayeen, not Al Qaeda and that he had never dealt with WMD.
Administration[/b]
Secretary of State Powell made U.N. speech on Iraq. Claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had agreed to nonaggression pact in mid-1990s and that two sides had met at least 8 times. Bin Laden had me
t with head of Iraqi intelligence. Iraq sent agents to Afghanistan to train Al Qaeda in forging documents. Claimed in 2000 Iraq offered 2 Al Qaeda operatives WMD training but didn???t know if it happened or not. Said that Abu Zarqawi headed an Al Qaeda cell in Baghdad along with 12 other operatives. Powell claimed that Ansar Al-Islam was proof there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
4/27/03 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. found proof that Ansar al Islam received training and troops from Al Qaeda. However no proof that group was supported by Iraqi government.
6/03 - Intellligence[/b]
U.N. Monitoring Group on Al Qaeda found no connection with Iraq.
7/03 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. captures Iraqi intelligence officer that allegedly met with 9/11 hijacker Atta in Prague. Denies the he ever met Atta and says that he was not in Prague at the time.
7/1/03 - Intelligence[/b]
Former Deputy Director of CIA Richard J. Kerr testified to Congress that there was constant pressure on the CIA to find links between Iraq and Al Qaeda by the White House.
9/14/03 - Administration[/b]
Cheney told Meet The Press that there was a longstanding relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but he wasn???t sure whether Iraq was behind 9/11.
9/16-9/17/03 - Administraiton[/b]
Rumsfeld said that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Rice continued to make the connection however when she told Nightline that U.S. went to war with Iraq because it was where 9/11 came from. Bush repeated remark that Iraq not connected with 9/11, but that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked.
10/10/03 - Administration[/b]
Cheney told Heritage Foundation that Iraq had a relationship with Al Qaeda that included giving training in poisons, bombs and WMD.
2004 - Intelligence[/b]
Captive Al Qaeda member who claimed that Iraq had given Al Qaeda bomb and poison training recanted his statement.
1/04 - Administration[/b]
Twice more Cheney claimed that there was overwhelming evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He told NPR that a member of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was on the Iraqi payroll.
3/22/04 - Administration[/b]
Wolfowitz???s spokesman said that Al Qaeda was a major threat because it was partly sponsored by Iraq. Spokesman also said that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rachim Yasir, member of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.
6/04 - Administration[/b]
Cheney again claimed a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Powell said that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but that it did not involve 9/11.
6/16/04 - Intelligence[/b]
Preliminary report of 9/11 Commission said that Iraq and Al Qaeda had met, but that there was no collaboration. Also said that 9/11 hijacker Atta never met with Iraqi intelligence. FBI and CIA agreed with finding.
Administration[/b]
When asked about the preliminary findings, Powell told al Jazeera, that there were connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said that the administration never claimed a connection between Iraq and 9/11 however. White House repeated claim in press conference. Said that the Commission did not contradict statements by Bush and Cheney.
6/17/04 & 6/20/04 - Administration[/b]
Cheney said that there was overwhelming evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Said that Atta-Iraqi meeting was proof. Bush also said they were connected.
6/30/04 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA officer released book claiming that Agency was repeatedly told to re-do intelligence that said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda by the White House.
7/7/04 - Intelligence[/b]
Senate Intelligence Committee???s report on pre-war Iraq intelligence released. Said that there was no evidence of Iraq collaborating with Al Qaeda.
7/8/04 - Administration[/b]
Senator Levin made public Tenet???s letter saying that Atta meeting didn???t happen. Cheney???s office said that everything Cheney said about Al Qaeda-Iraq links was based upon CIA intelligence.
So these two researches are saying that Iraq has radicalized a new generation of Muslims and led them to go to Iraq to fight America. The war in Iraq also apparently radicalized these guys in London and Madrid to attack the governments there. The guys in London and Madrid carried out devastating terrorist attacks, and the Saudis are the largest group to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. So they're not comparable?
no i dont think they are. iraqis fighting on their own land against a foreign invader have more of a valid reason for thier actions.
i can stab a dude on the street and say that it was cause of the invasion in iraq, does that make my actions excusable? no. does it reduce or increase the justifaction for the invasion? no.
Again, in both cases I think there's good evidence to say that Iraq has created a new generation of people willing to kill Americans and westerners for their cause.
the invasion of iraq has created more propaganda for the islamofacists, true, but so have hillary duff and lindsey lohan, these folks will find any excuse for their actions and whats even more disturbing is the fact that other people will make excuses for them
So these two researches are saying that Iraq has radicalized a new generation of Muslims and led them to go to Iraq to fight America. The war in Iraq also apparently radicalized these guys in London and Madrid to attack the governments there. The guys in London and Madrid carried out devastating terrorist attacks, and the Saudis are the largest group to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. So they're not comparable?
no i dont think they are. iraqis fighting on their own land against a foreign invader have more of a valid reason for thier actions.
The two reports were about foreign fighters going to Iraq to fight Americans though. If Saudis and other Arabs are radicalized by the Iraq invasion and what to go blow themsleves up in Iraq, how is that much different from Arabs in Western Europe getting radicalized and wanting to blow up shit there?
Again, in both cases I think there's good evidence to say that Iraq has created a new generation of people willing to kill Americans and westerners for their cause.
the invasion of iraq has created more propaganda for the islamofacists, true, but so have hillary duff and lindsey lohan, these folks will find any excuse for their actions and whats even more disturbing is the fact that other people will make excuses for them
Yes, I'm an apologist for Islamic terrorism. I've secretly been getting grants from Al Qaeda because as a High School teacher I don't get paid shit. It really helps with record buying and ebaying though!
Make a little comparison though, did Afghanistan radicalize a generation of Islamists? Can Iraq be doing the same thing? Or do these people just operate in a bubble where outside forces don't really matter?
So those two reports I quoted were about foreign fighters going to Iraq. Because they looked at their motivations does that make them apologists for terrorism?
and when you become a retired terrorist, do they have a pension plan? do they have dental?
No, Al Qaeda isn't up on that "Western" type of labor-management relationship stuff.
And again, quit being lazy. I said their names. Go look on the internet. Here's an article "Study Cites Seed of Terror in Iraq" Boston Globe 7/17/05. If I keep on doing all your work for you I'm going to star asking for a pension and dental plan from you!
Comments
and i suppose if not for that they would be tending their olive trees and minding their own business leading happy and productive lives?
Im not much concerned with how happy or sad they are.
if you posted the sources in the earlier post, please post again.
I didnt know we had a starting point. My point in the first post was that someone said we were not attacked prior to 9/11. In the second post, I never said they were too far apart, what I questioned was where you got your figure that more US citizens were killed after 9/11 than before. And in the previous post, I made the point that a causal relationship between 9/11 and the rise in islamic terror was not as nice and neat as you make it out to be.
1. learn arabic and islam. didn't someone on the board know taliban john walker's brother. majic jackson maybe? that dude is crazy, but good people it seems. im sure he'd (TJ walk) would be a great place to start to get the 'real story'. your sources need more polydynamism. or am i wrong? its like : i can read all the reviews i want but never understand the sound until i listen to the real thang so for me to to act like i know about a song based on your review is
2. sell record = buy chill pill
So you are saying that the increase in deadliness and frequency of the attacks is just part of the normal progression of terrorism since some point in time which we have not yet established?
Oh and just a point of reference the Spain and Britain attacks were not made by some goat herders from the Negev but rather by city dwellers some of whom were citizens of the countries they attacked.
Either Munich Olympics or the 79 Iranian Revolution.
yes. in large part, coupled with the lack of a resolute American response.
We can talk about how fucked Europe is going to be in the next 25 years in another post.
you would make a good lawyer because you're always trying to get me to commit to your paraphrasing what I say, only a little differently.
One was getting his PhD in economics I think, one was a drug dealer, one was a teacher, etc. Only one out of the 15 in Madrid had been in an Islamist group before. Do have evidence to the contrary that they were NOT radicalized by the invasion of Iraq. The research and background to the Madrid bombing are pretty detailed.
So if the invasion of Afghanistan was working and had made the Islamsits feel defeated that doesn't matter?
Don't be lazy. Go back to page 4.
You're getting me and Dr. Wu confused. That's the basis for the problem.
If you look from the Clinton administraiton to the present day as the time that we've been fighting Al Qaeda there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Islamist terrorist attacks after 9/11. That would be a simple time frame because we're only talking about 1 group.
FIGURES!!
I'd rather they feel dead.
Its because now we're fighting back. Would you consider it a fair trade, if for the next 20 years there wasn't a single attack, and then they blew up an atom bomb on the Lexington Avenue local?
I view you all as part of one big multi-headed leftwing hydra monster.
motown, you are unhappy about the invasion of iraq, does that justify you if you blow something up because of that unhappiness? the link between someone blowing something or someone up because of iraq is the weakest agrugment against the invasion of iraq, and is apologizing for cold blooded murder.
Both of those guys were basically retired and living out their lives in Iraq. Not only that, but one of them got killed, probably by Saddam, before the U.S. invasion happened so what does that say about his relationship with international terrorism? The last terrorist act either one of those guys did was kill a member of Arafat's Fatah organization in the mid-1990s.
Richard Clarke, the CIA, and the State Department all said that Iraq had not been connected with any anti-Western terrosim since 1993 when they planned on killing the 1st Bush while he was on a trip to Kuwait.
If you're talking about terrorism in general, they gave money to people who were suicide bombers in Israel and they also killed a bunch of Iraqi exiles who were against Saddam. That's about it.
No, but I'm trying to point out that a new generation of Islamists has been created because of the invasion of Iraq. So if the invasion was about the war on terrorism, than creating more terrorists doesn't really seem to be helping the situation now is it?
And if you've read anything I've posted about Iraq you'd know I have a number of complaints about the invasion beginning with the false pretenses for the war, the failure to plan for after the war, the continued fuck ups in the country since then, etc. etc.
But I forgot, according to you we've actually won the Iraq war against the insurgents how many times now? 3 or something after Fallujah and the 1st election and ....
That's what we did in Afghanistan I thought? Invaded, overthrew the Taliban and killed a bunch of them. Hence their feeling of defeat. But I forgot, ONLY the U.S. homeland matters. Great way to discount an actual success in the war on terror. I guess you can only support certain Bush administration policies.
No, but I'm trying to point out that a new generation of Islamists has been created because of the invasion of Iraq.
Is it possible that a new generation of Americans has been created by 9/11?
the3rdstream, do these guys count as making excuses for murder as well?
motown, if you reread my post i was talking about the bombers in madrid and and london, not insurgents in iraq
So these two researches are saying that Iraq has radicalized a new generation of Muslims and led them to go to Iraq to fight America. The war in Iraq also apparently radicalized these guys in London and Madrid to attack the governments there. The guys in London and Madrid carried out devastating terrorist attacks, and the Saudis are the largest group to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. So they're not comparable?
Again, in both cases I think there's good evidence to say that Iraq has created a new generation of people willing to kill Americans and westerners for their cause.
Wars have a huge impact on people both within and without the country.
The literature on the Islamist movement all pretty much agrees that Afghanistan was a turning point. Not ony did it radicalize Muslims around the world, a lot of them went to Afghanistan to fight against the Russians and won. They met a lot of like minded people, networked, created base camps, went back to their homelands and caused havoc. The most famous of these individuals in Bin Laden himself.
People seem to think that Iraq is somehow different.
Again, I would suggest you go back and review my previous posts. Besides the insurgents successful bombings of the oil infrastructure, most of what I've written about is how the U.S. fucked up during the planning for the war, the failure of planning afterwards, the abuses by the Shiites and Kurds, the failure of the elections to forge national consensus, etc.
You know, even Vitamin in his last post on the subject said that he felt like the U.S. was losing in Iraq.
1994 and 1995 - Intelligence[/b]
3 meetings between Al Qaeda and Iraq in Sudan. Met to discuss mutual dislike of Saudi Arabia. Iraq agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi speech that bin Laden had given. Bin Laden asked for help with training camps and buying weapons but Iraq ignored it. Post-War U.S. commissions believe that these meetings led to no cooperation.
1996 - Intelligence[/b]
Al Qaeda and Iraq met again in Afghanistan but nothing came of it.
CIA report that Iraq had given Al Qaeda bomb training.
1998 - Intelligence[/b]
National Security Council intelligence review of Iraq found no relationship with Al Qaeda.
April 2001 - Intelligence[/b]
Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke gives 1st briefing to new Bush Administration on terrorism. Focuses on Al Qaeda.
State Department???s annual report on terrorism said that Iraq supported terrorism, but that it was mostly against Iraqi exiles. Didn???t find any anti-Western terrorism since 1993 when tried to assassinate ex-Pres. Bush.
Administration[/b]
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz questions why Clarke spent so much time on Al Qaeda. Wolfowitz wanted to talk about Iraq???s support of terrorism and claimed that Al Qaeda was linked with Sadam. Wolfowitz claimed Iraq behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Clarke told him there was no connection.
9/11/01 - Administration[/b]
Within 5 hours of 9/11 attack Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld wanted to see whether Iraq was behind the attack. Told Wolfowitz to look into Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Also suggested that U.S. attack Iraq as well as Al Qaeda as response to 9/11.
9/12/01 - Intelligence[/b]
Clarke gave briefing to White House on Al Qaeda. Said that Al Qaeda independent and Iraq not behind 9/11.
On the insistence of President Bush, Clarke and the FBI wrote a report on Iraq, Al Qaeda and 9/11. They found no connection.
Administration[/b]
Neoconservatives in White House tried to link Iraq with Al Qaeda and 9/11. Bush pulled over Clarke personally and asked him to look into Iraq and 9/11. Clarke told Bush that there was no connection.
Either National Security Advisor Rice or her deputy Stephen Hadley rejected the Clarke/FBI report and told them to do it again because it found no evidence of a connection. In his book, Clarke wrote, ???Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.???
9/13/01 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA and FBI had previously said that Iraq was not involved in 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Administration[/b]
Wolfowitz asked officials if Iraq was connected to 9/11. He began lobbying Vice President Cheney that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Also came to believe that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center based upon a book. Wolfowitz sent former CIA chief James Woolsey to Europe to investigate claims but found nothing. Wolfowitz also asked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to look into book???s claim. DIA told him that Islamists not Iraq behind 1993 bombing. Wolfowitz told DIA they had to prove that the book was true. They never did.
9/15/01 - Administration[/b]
Bush held national security meeting to discuss responses to 9/11. Wolfowitz made unsupported claim that there was a 10-50% chance that Iraq was behind 9/11 and that Iraq had to be the focus of the war on terror. Secretary of State Powell argued that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
9/17/01 - Administration[/b]
At National Security Council meeting Bush said he believed Iraq connected to 9/11 but didn???t have evidence to justify an attack yet.
9/19/02 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA report ???Iraqi Support for Terrorism??? said that Iraq would not conduct terrorist attacks out of fear that it would lead to a U.S. attack
9/21/02 - Intelligence[/b]
During Bush???s Daily Briefing U.S. intelligence tells him that there is no evidence that Iraq was connected with 9/11. Also told that little collaboration between the two. Iraq saw Al Qaeda as a potential threat because of its radical ideology and had attempted to infiltrate it to keep tabs on its activities. Briefing was prepared at the request of Bush. Daily Brief was later turned into a longer intelligence assessment on Iraq and terrorism and given to Bush, Cheney, National Security Advisor Ricer, her Deputy Stephen Hadley, Rumsfeld and his undersecretaries, and other policy makers.
Fall 2001 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA & FBI both claim that Mohammad Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers, did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001. Claim was refuted several more times by U.S. intelligence
Administration[/b]
White House officials try to confirm whether 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
10/01 - Intelligence[/b]
Defense Department created the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group to give its own intelligence analysis of terrorism. Concluded that divisions within the Muslim world were breaking down and that allowed groups like Iraq and Al Qaeda who had opposing views to work together.
10/1/02 - Intelligence[/b]
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq said that it would not use terrorists because it could lead to war with U.S. NIE also said that Saddam kept tight control over his WMD and would only use them on the battlefield, not give them to terrorists.
11/01 - Intelligence[/b]
Czech Prime Minister told administration officials about Spring 2001 meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence.
U.S. soldiers found documents in Afghanistan that Al Qaeda was trying to acquire WMD.
Administration[/b]
Vice President Cheney went on TV and said that 9/11 hijacker Atta met with Iraqi intelligence
White House reported soldiers' findings and claimed that Iraq was the easiest place for Al Qaeda to get WMD.
12/01 - Intelligence[/b]
Czech Interior Minister gave more details on Atta meeting to U.S. Claim made by Arab student in Prague who was considered unreliable. Czech President Havel didn???t believe report. CIA and FBI didn???t either. Had credit card receipt from Atta in Florida on day of on the alleged meetings.
12/9/01 - Administration[/b]
Cheney repeated Atta claim to Meet The Pres
1/02 - Intelligence[/b]
Undersecretary of Defense Feith had DIA look at 6/21/02 CIA report that found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. DIA criticized CIA report and Feith passed findings onto Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
Defense Department???s Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group criticized the CIA???s intelligence because it found contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda but no cooperation. Group claimed that there was cooperation.
2/02 - Intelligence[/b]
State Department???s annual report on terrorism found no connection between Iraq and 9/11 and Al Qaeda. Did say that Atta claim was under investigation. CIA Chief George Tenet said that Iraq was not responsible for any anti-Western terrorism since 1993.
Captive Al Qaeda member claims that Iraq had given Al Qaeda training in bomb making and poison making. Defense Int elligence Agency (DIA) issues report that they think he???s lying. Report also questioned whether Iraq would ever cooperate with Al Qaeda.
3/17/02 - Administration[/b]
British Ambassador to the U.S. Christopher Meyer met with Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz said there were questions about whether 9/11 hijacker Atta met with Iraq intelligence in Prague. Asked if British had any new information. Wolfowitz also said that Iraq behind the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, even though his own investigation in 2001 found no evidence.
6/12/02 - Intelligence[/b]
White House asked for an intelligence report on Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. CIA found contacts, but no cooperation.
7/22/02 - Intelligence[/b]
Defense Department???s Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group created briefing for the administration on Iraq-Al Qaeda links. Claimed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with Iraqis, that Iraq and Al Qaeda had cooperated on 9/11 attack, that two had worked on WMD, and that therefore the U.S. should attack Iraq. Group told Rumsfeld that CIA???s opinion that Iraq-Al Qaeda not connected ought to be ignored.
8/02 - Administration[/b]
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld claimed there were Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq that the Iraqi government knew about.
8/20/02 - Intelligence[/b]
Intelligence meeting between intelligence community and the Defense Department???s Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. Group argued for inclusion of Atta claim in intelligence report, but was rejected.
8/21/02 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. intelligence began investigating connections between Islamist group Ansar Al Islam in Kurdish northern Iraq and Al Qaeda and Iraqi government. Evidence that Ansar sent fighters of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan from 1999-2000. Also said that Al Qaeda fighters had fled to Ansar camps in Iraq after U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
Administration[/b]
Rumsfeld would make a public statement saying that Ansar Al Islam couldn???t be taking in Al Qaeda fighters without the Iraqi government knowing.
9/02 - Intelligence[/b]
FBI assistant director for counterterrorism Pat D???Amuro tells Wolfowitz that meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta and Iraqis didn???t happen. Wolfowitz pressured him to at least acknowledge that the meeting was possible.
9/2/02 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. intelligence claimed that Al Qaeda operatives had fled Afghanistan after invasion and settled in Northern Iraq with Ansar Al-Islam. Report said that, ???The Al Qaeda people are not official guests of the Iraqi government.???
Administration[/b]
Administration begins leaking stories to the media that Ansar Al-Islam was part of Al Qaeda and that they were operating in Iraq.
9/3/02 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. intelligence interrogates two captured Al Qaeda operatives. One who was Al Qaeda???s Chief of Operations said that bin Laden was opposed to cooperation with Iraq. Other said that Al Qaeda members had gone to Iraq in December 2000 training. The second captive had been labeled a liar by the DIA in February 2002 but his clams were still used in intelligence reports.
9/25-9/26/02 - Administration[/b]
Bush told reporters, ???You can???t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.??? Rice claimed there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda establishing a relationship on PBS??? Newshour, including operatives fleeing to northern Iraq after Afghanistan invasion. Rumsfeld told reporters that Al Qaeda had tried to acquire WMD from Iraq and that two had contracts going back a decade. Was probably referring to Ansar Al Islam about WMD.
10/1/02 - Intelligence[/b]
National Intelligence Estimate said that Iraq would only give WMDs to terrorists in extreme conditions. Mentioned 1994 and 1995 meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda in Sudan, but that those led to nothing. Also noted reports that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda in bomb and poison making but it had not been confirmed. Predicted that a U.S. attack on Iraq would lead to cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda over their common enemy, America.
10/7/02 - Intelligence[/b]
Intelligence community came to the conclusion that Abu Zarqawi was not a member of Al Qaeda. Said that he led his own terrorist organization that occasionally cooperated with Al Qaeda.
Administration[/b]
Bush gives speech in Cincinnati. Claimed ???Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poison and deadly gases.??? Bush claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda had ???high-level contacts that go back a decade,??? and Abu Zarqawi was an Al Qaeda leader, and that he had received medical treatment in Baghdad in 2002.
10/14/02 - Administration[/b]
Bush gave speech where he claimed Iraq was using Al Qaeda as its ???forward army??? in a new war.
1/03 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA made revised report on Iraq and terrorism saying that they couldn???t find links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Stated that Iraq didn???t know about 9/11. Also that Saddam???s opposition to Saudi Wahabism, which Al Qaeda followed, made cooperation difficult. CIA interviewed two senior Al Qaeda leaders in custody about Iraq connections. They said there was no alliance. They did say that terrorist Abu Zarqawi had a good relationship with Iraq, but that bin Laden wouldn???t have agreed to an alliance with Iraq. Said that Zarqawi had been in Iraq since May 2002 with Iraqi knowledge.
Reviewed claims that Al Qaeda and Iraq had met after mid-90s contacts in Sudan. Found that the reports were not reliable. Found that reports of Iraq training Al Qaeda turned out to be Al Qaeda asking for Iraqi training, which never happened. Uncorroborated reports that Iraq training Al Qaeda at Salman Pak counterterrorism training camp. Went over claims that Iraq had offered bin Laden safe haven in Iraq in 1998 and 1999 although one of those reports also said Iraq had rejected the offer.
Found that Iraq had not cooperated in any Al Qaeda terrorist acts. Said that 100-200 Al Qaeda operatives had joined Ansar Al-Islam in Kurdish northern Iraq since Fall of 2001. Iraq probably knew about their presence and allowed it. In the end, report concluded that Iraq might use terrorism if attacked, but no intelligence to support the claim. Said that Iraq supported and provided safe haven to various terrorist groups, mostly Palestinians, most of which had been inactive since the early 1990s. Iraq had given millions to Palestinian suicide bombers. Also had tried to reach out to newer Palestinian terrorist groups but failed. Iraq also supported an anti-Iranian group. Report said that if Iraq was to carry out terrorist attacks it would use its own intelligence service, which it had done in the past, not independent terrorist groups.
1/28/03 - Administration[/b]
In Bush???s State of the Union address he said that Iraq aids and protects Al Qaeda.
2/03 - Intelligence[/b]
Revised CIA report on Iraq and terrorism said that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta never met with Iraqis in Prague in 2001.
Administration[/b]
Vice President Cheney???s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby tried to get Atta claim included in Secretary of State Powell???s U.N. speech but Powell rejected it as unconfirmed.
2/5/03 - Intelligence[/b]
Defense Intelligence Agency interviewed Iraqi defector provided by the Iraqi National Congress who claimed that Iraq had given WMD training to Al Qaeda. When interviewed by the CIA he changed his story saying that he had trained Saddam Fedayeen, not Al Qaeda and that he had never dealt with WMD.
Administration[/b]
Secretary of State Powell made U.N. speech on Iraq. Claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had agreed to nonaggression pact in mid-1990s and that two sides had met at least 8 times. Bin Laden had me t with head of Iraqi intelligence. Iraq sent agents to Afghanistan to train Al Qaeda in forging documents. Claimed in 2000 Iraq offered 2 Al Qaeda operatives WMD training but didn???t know if it happened or not. Said that Abu Zarqawi headed an Al Qaeda cell in Baghdad along with 12 other operatives. Powell claimed that Ansar Al-Islam was proof there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
4/27/03 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. found proof that Ansar al Islam received training and troops from Al Qaeda. However no proof that group was supported by Iraqi government.
6/03 - Intellligence[/b]
U.N. Monitoring Group on Al Qaeda found no connection with Iraq.
7/03 - Intelligence[/b]
U.S. captures Iraqi intelligence officer that allegedly met with 9/11 hijacker Atta in Prague. Denies the he ever met Atta and says that he was not in Prague at the time.
7/1/03 - Intelligence[/b]
Former Deputy Director of CIA Richard J. Kerr testified to Congress that there was constant pressure on the CIA to find links between Iraq and Al Qaeda by the White House.
9/14/03 - Administration[/b]
Cheney told Meet The Press that there was a longstanding relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but he wasn???t sure whether Iraq was behind 9/11.
9/16-9/17/03 - Administraiton[/b]
Rumsfeld said that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Rice continued to make the connection however when she told Nightline that U.S. went to war with Iraq because it was where 9/11 came from. Bush repeated remark that Iraq not connected with 9/11, but that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked.
10/10/03 - Administration[/b]
Cheney told Heritage Foundation that Iraq had a relationship with Al Qaeda that included giving training in poisons, bombs and WMD.
2004 - Intelligence[/b]
Captive Al Qaeda member who claimed that Iraq had given Al Qaeda bomb and poison training recanted his statement.
1/04 - Administration[/b]
Twice more Cheney claimed that there was overwhelming evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He told NPR that a member of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was on the Iraqi payroll.
3/22/04 - Administration[/b]
Wolfowitz???s spokesman said that Al Qaeda was a major threat because it was partly sponsored by Iraq. Spokesman also said that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rachim Yasir, member of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.
6/04 - Administration[/b]
Cheney again claimed a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Powell said that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but that it did not involve 9/11.
6/16/04 - Intelligence[/b]
Preliminary report of 9/11 Commission said that Iraq and Al Qaeda had met, but that there was no collaboration. Also said that 9/11 hijacker Atta never met with Iraqi intelligence. FBI and CIA agreed with finding.
Administration[/b]
When asked about the preliminary findings, Powell told al Jazeera, that there were connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said that the administration never claimed a connection between Iraq and 9/11 however. White House repeated claim in press conference. Said that the Commission did not contradict statements by Bush and Cheney.
6/17/04 & 6/20/04 - Administration[/b]
Cheney said that there was overwhelming evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Said that Atta-Iraqi meeting was proof. Bush also said they were connected.
6/30/04 - Intelligence[/b]
CIA officer released book claiming that Agency was repeatedly told to re-do intelligence that said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda by the White House.
7/7/04 - Intelligence[/b]
Senate Intelligence Committee???s report on pre-war Iraq intelligence released. Said that there was no evidence of Iraq collaborating with Al Qaeda.
7/8/04 - Administration[/b]
Senator Levin made public Tenet???s letter saying that Atta meeting didn???t happen. Cheney???s office said that everything Cheney said about Al Qaeda-Iraq links was based upon CIA intelligence.
no i dont think they are. iraqis fighting on their own land against a foreign invader have more of a valid reason for thier actions.
i can stab a dude on the street and say that it was cause of the invasion in iraq, does that make my actions excusable? no. does it reduce or increase the justifaction for the invasion? no.
the invasion of iraq has created more propaganda for the islamofacists, true, but so have hillary duff and lindsey lohan, these folks will find any excuse for their actions and whats even more disturbing is the fact that other people will make excuses for them
The two reports were about foreign fighters going to Iraq to fight Americans though. If Saudis and other Arabs are radicalized by the Iraq invasion and what to go blow themsleves up in Iraq, how is that much different from Arabs in Western Europe getting radicalized and wanting to blow up shit there?
the invasion of iraq has created more propaganda for the islamofacists, true, but so have hillary duff and lindsey lohan, these folks will find any excuse for their actions and whats even more disturbing is the fact that other people will make excuses for them
Yes, I'm an apologist for Islamic terrorism. I've secretly been getting grants from Al Qaeda because as a High School teacher I don't get paid shit. It really helps with record buying and ebaying though!
Make a little comparison though, did Afghanistan radicalize a generation of Islamists? Can Iraq be doing the same thing? Or do these people just operate in a bubble where outside forces don't really matter?
and when you become a retired terrorist, do they have a pension plan? do they have dental?
I could use the money. My bills are killing me.
So those two reports I quoted were about foreign fighters going to Iraq. Because they looked at their motivations does that make them apologists for terrorism?
No, Al Qaeda isn't up on that "Western" type of labor-management relationship stuff.
And again, quit being lazy. I said their names. Go look on the internet. Here's an article "Study Cites Seed of Terror in Iraq" Boston Globe 7/17/05. If I keep on doing all your work for you I'm going to star asking for a pension and dental plan from you!