Unofficialbmw.com

panzerkeil302 · Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 2182

Pentagon finds 'no credible evidence' of link between al-Qaida and Iraq

By The Associated Press and The Washington Post

DENNIS COOK / AP
WASHINGTON — Rebuffing Bush administration claims, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said yesterday that no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein. The commission also said the terrorist network had envisioned a much larger attack on the U.S. and is working hard to strike again.
Although al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law-enforcement officials. The report said "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks

full story below;
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001958076_panel17.html

patrick66 · Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 623 Location: Oklahoma

Yeah. Never mind, al-Quida had a 707 fuselage located outside Baghdad that little junior terrorists practiced hijacking techniques and procedures on!

The 9/11 Comission is a fraud, anyway. Jamie Gorelick was one of the members. She is the one in the Clinton Attorney General's Office that hamstrung the cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. SHE created the regulations that created the "wal of separation" that existed up until AFTER 9/11 occurred! SHE should have been ANSWERING questions by the panel NOT ASKING them! Look up her name on Google, if you don't believe me! There is plenty of real evidence against her showing she was instrumental in creating the environment in the intel/LE communities that prevented sharing of crucial information that could've prevented the attack in the first place. Tough to "connect the dots" when the Clinton Administration scrambled the puzzle pieces!

Besides, all the press has to say about that report is about one little line (of over 1,500 pages of report) that says "no direct involvement was found between al-Quida and Saddam..." Notice, they conveinently omit the line "...over the 9/11 attacks", implying the two had no connection whatsoever with each other in terrorist activities against the West and the US.

The commission was and is a sham!

panzerkeil302 · Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 2182

GeeDoubya said today that connections between Iraq and Osama existed..That Osama did meet with Iraqi officals...but he never mentioned the 3billion we gave Osama (thats a pretty big connection)...so we funded the terrorist that hit us, and we have WOMD....so should we be invading ourselves?

Think about, think about....

patrick66 · Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 623 Location: Oklahoma

What the 9/11 commission (and the mainstream media) conveiniently forgot to look at and/or tell you, if you can handle the truth...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

Read it and weep!

Tangent · Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 17 Location: Hemet, CA

quote:
Originally posted by panzerkeil302:
GeeDoubya said today that connections between Iraq and Osama existed..That Osama did meet with Iraqi officals...but he never mentioned the 3billion we gave Osama (thats a pretty big connection)...so we funded the terrorist that hit us, and we have WOMD....so should we be invading ourselves?

Think about, think about....

We gave him that money when the Soviets were in Afghanistan so they could defend themselves. Have you never had somebody you thought was a friend turn on you? If so you're luckier than most. If you saw somebody getting overrun by a mutual enemy and helped them, would you expect them to turn around and use your aid against you?

The chances of us using our WMDs on the civilian population of a country because they allow them to practice a religion we don't approve of are somewhere south of slim to none. Meanwhile Saddam already has used chemical weapons on his own people for those very reasons. Are we to assume then that despite that he wouldn't happily allow them to be used on us, his greatest enemy?

panzerkeil302 · Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 2182

Do you wonder if any of that 3 billion was used for say...flight trainning?

Why do you they turned on us? Just curious

patrick66 · Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 623 Location: Oklahoma

Who cares why they turned on us? The fact is they did and killed 3000+ of our citizens in NY, DC, and PA, along with many others along the way, before and after 9/11. They must die. I don't care about their rage, or what makes them tick, or whatever about them. The are our enemy NOW, and they must be stopped, no matter what. To do less is to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Kill them before they kill us!

Do YOU want the US to become an Islamic republic, as is their stated goal??? Keep on calling US the bad guys in this, and you'll have your opportunity!

To say al Quida was not in Iraq and the two weren't related is ludicrous, at best! We had the 19 hijackers and the 20th that was caught, living right here in the US in places like Norman, OK; Miami, FL; Minneapolis, MN, and Newark, NJ. But, al Quida was not operating and training in Iraq??? Get serious!

Keep deluding yourself in believing the terrorists and Iraq have no connection, and you'll soon be orienting yourself towards Mecca five times a day, whether you want to or not! If they don't forcibly convert you, you die!

On a related note, notice the press always speakes of the "holy city of Tikrit"; the "holy city of Najaf", etc, but NEVER refer to the "holy city of Jerusalem" or the "holy city of Bethlehem" when referring to Christians and Jews dying in Israel???

What's wrong with this picture, panzerkeil??? Just mildly curious!??

[ 06-18-2004: Message edited by: patrick66 ]

patrick66 · Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 623 Location: Oklahoma

Oh, yeah, we did provide aid to the Afghan rebels because the Soviet government invaded and the rebels asked for help from us to repel them. That was in 1979. Twenty-five years ago. Are you still friends with all of the people you knew after 25 years went by? Probably not!

The war in Iraq has NEVER been presented as "getting back" for 9/11, but was ALWAYS represented as a war of pre-emption. Deal with the truth, and you'll feel much better! The "I hate Bush" mentality of the Left does nothing but give aid and comfort to the terrorists and their allies. I've got two nephews over in Iraq right now, kicking ass and doing what they're trained to do. Despite the negativism by people like yourself and the press, they keep going and get the job done! The job of the military is kill people and break things. You've said you're ex-military; you should realize that and support OUR President in the nation's endeavour to root out the bad guys and do what's necessary to preserve our nation's security.

But, I guess the decapitations of Mr. Berg and, today, Mr. Johnson have "no connection" to anything, either, right?

You have a better idea? Let's hear it!

[ 06-18-2004: Message edited by: patrick66 ]

panzerkeil302 · Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 2182

"You have a better idea? Let's hear it!"

I think it would have been better to focus our ground troops in Afgahistan...Al Qaeda is not a country, it is a series of cells.

Al Qaeda bombed a train rail in Spain...so should we invade Spain? No, how silly. That train was bombed well after GeeDoubya declared mission accomplished - so, how could it have happend? Because we're dealing with a terrorist grid. I don't know how to stop them, but invading an entire countrys is the worst way to do it, the cell is just going to move.

Agree, disagree?

patrick66 · Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 623 Location: Oklahoma

We don't invade an ally. We help them. Next...

panzerkeil302 · Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 2182

So if a cell of Al Qaeda is in Iran, do we invade Iran?

back to you...

patrick66 · Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 623 Location: Oklahoma

Iran is not an ally, but a member of the axis of evil. Invasion is not a problem with me. Kick their ass, too.

Then Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, and wherever our foes hide the terrorists and their instruments of death.

Your turn...

[ 06-18-2004: Message edited by: patrick66 ]

panzerkeil302 · Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 2182

"Iran is not an ally, but a member of the axis of evil. Invasion is not a problem with me. Kick their ass, too."

So to chase a sect, we should spend billions to invade a country?

That strikes you as the best plan?

patrick66 · Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 623 Location: Oklahoma

Kill them first. I have no problem with that. You'd rather wait until they detonate a car bomb in the mall you're at before you holler "We're not doing enough!!!" and blame President Bush for your plight. I'm not willing to wait for that moment, personally; nor is the vast majority of the American public.

You still haven't rebutted any of my above points, because you can't with any sense of logic or intellectual repose. Have a nice day. While the terrorists let you...

panzerkeil302 · Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 2182

Johnson (God rest his soul) was in Saudi...

Saudi is harboring terrorists, but would be called an ally (agree?). Do we need to invade them also? Looks like we just put them on "official notice"

What points are you talking about? You want to dispute the 9/11 commission? Come on..that's just non-sense.

How about this for protecting the malls....Increase Border Security. That is the point you can't seem to deal with. We have defeated an entire country, but we are not secure. It was a bad plan, we have not stopped the terrorists.

We seem to be making them more determined to strike again.

Here is the answer to solve this problem.

Instead of invading entire countries like a bunch of morons, pull home our troops, and take every dime we save on re-enforcing our borders.

Each cell needs to be dealt with surgically. Nothing a little persistent Intel and a C-130 gunship could not handle.

Doesn't this sound like a better idea than trying to swat a gnat with a frying pan?

[ 06-18-2004: Message edited by: panzerkeil302 ]