This Modern Age

Iraq War – Remembering the Causes: Part III

with 16 comments

Welcome to the series for Part I click here, for Part II click here.

Terrorist & al-Qaeda Connections to Iraq

Given all of this, WMDs is not the only reason we went to war in Iraq.  Often the President’s critics object to the war in Iraq being labeled as a part of the War on Terrorism.  The London Telegraph has been the greatest source of journalism that has found links between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but there have been other sources as well. 

  • Documents have been found that have correspondence between an Iraqi Intelligence Chief and Saddam Hussein that place Mohamed Atta in Baghdad in 2001 for “training.” A member of Iraq’s Presidential Committee has verified the validity of this correspondence.
  • Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague in December 1994 and June 2000. There is a CIA memo and Czech intelligence that supports this.
  • Ahmed Shakir, an Iraqi national:
  1. Hosted a 9/11 hijacker in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000
  2. Traveled and met with terrorists worldwide
  3. Was detained in September 2001 with contact information for ’93 World Trade Center terrorists, ’98 embassy bombers, ’00 USS Cole plotters, and 9/11 hijackers (This dude had the hook-ups!).  There are memos that this from our Defense Intelligence Agency and our National Security Agency.
  4. The CIA has phone records of Shakir receiving telephone calls from the house where the ’93 WTC bombing was planned.
  • Other CIA memos list at least 50 instances of contact between al-Qaeda and Iraq from 1990 to March 2003.
  • The London Telegraph links Mohamed Atta to Iraq-based Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. Ziad, another 9/11 pilot, also seems to have had connections to Nidal.
  • During the 1999 “What do we do with Osama?” debacle hosted by the Sudan, Saddam offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq. He ended up in Afghanistan.
  • Salmon Pak – It’s hard to know where to start on this one.

Salmon Pak is a terrorist training camp south of Baghdad.  Defectors say that men came from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt, and Morocco to train there.  Here is the kicker.  The unique item to Salmon Pak is an empty Boeing 707.  There are aerial photos of this.  Funny enough, the camp doesn’t have a runway; the plane just sits there.  Charles Duelfer testified that he saw the plane from a helicopter and that the Iraqis told it was for (get this) counter- terrorist training. 

Salmon Pak opened in 1995.  This is the same year that al-Qaeda members started plotting in the Philippines on how to hijack airliners and slam them into U.S. landmarks.  Their drawn up plans show they wanted to get up to 15 airliners.  November 2001, the NY Times quotes Saban Khodada (Do you know what these names are doing to my spell check?), an Iraqi defector, saying that there was a six month curriculum at Salmon Pak teaching terrorists how to hijack airplanes with small knives and their bare hands.  The London Observer also has work on this.  They quote a man in Iraqi Intelligence by the name of Mukhabarat. 

  • It’s clear that Saddam paid between $15,000 and $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers for their services of ridding the world of Zionist devils, known commonly as Jewish women and children.

All of this information pushes Iraq from a perceived threat into an actual threat and certainly confirms that Iraq is a valid target in the War on Terror.

Advertisements

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Good post.

    Mark Eichenlaub

    July 10, 2008 at 5:56 pm

  2. Mark,

    I’m an avid National Review reader… you probably could have guessed that – so I am familiar with your work. But I didn’t realize you had such a thorough blog. Thanks for all of your work on the subject.

    Wilson K.

    thismodernage

    July 11, 2008 at 3:26 pm

  3. I understand that the reasons we went to war may be accurate. Yes Saddam probably had WMD’s and yes he had links to terrorists. The thing I have a problem with is I don’t see any valid argument for invasion here. Its one thing to repel invading enemies but to attack a country that never attacked us is totally different. Your using the same argument gun control advocates use, they have the capacity to harm someone they should be banned. or in Iraq’s case invaded by Jew loving Christian infidels. I just don’t think its the right way to get people to stop hating us or would you suggest conquering every Muslim nation?

    Keegan Sparks

    July 11, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  4. Brilliant stuff, as usual; amazingly detailed.

    I’m not surprised by Keegan’s comments; they offer the typical left-wing philosophy of criticism without alternative solutions (not that I am calling Keegan a leftist). What did, surprise me, however, was that Keegan did not challenge your facts because they come from British and U.S. sources. He might argue that they are the same sources that got us into the war in Iraq in the first place with “faulty intelligence.”

    Using Keegan’s argument, Israel should just sit back and wait for Iran to fire nuclear warhead-armed missles at them before they respond.

    Immediately after 911, George Bush said “you are either with us or against us,” adding, “Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity.” The country cheered those statements. He promised that terrorists would be hunted down and that countries that harbored terrorists would be dealt with. More resounding cheers.

    Perhaps some people in this country need another terrorist attack or two to refresh their memory.

    scottymck

    July 11, 2008 at 11:21 pm

  5. scottymck,
    so you’re suggesting it might be good for even more of our people to die so that will could kill even more of theirs? Or do you only want to kill a lot of them?

    I think we should just do what keegan alludes to and kill everyone who doesn’t like us, sticking to Bush’s promise of ‘with us or with the terrorists.’

    tad DeLay

    July 12, 2008 at 2:21 am

  6. tad,

    I don’t think I suggested anything. What I did do was point out how soon people forget.

    I really don’t think that Keenan suggested that we should kill everyone who doesn’t like us. If so, I don’t know how I’ll ever track down some of the people who have commented on my blog!

    I get frustrated when I hear people say that we should try to reason with these whackos or that we need to get them to like us more. I get further aggravated by those who criticize without offering real alternatives. We only have two choices as I see it:

    1). We can bomb the holy crap out of everyone and everything over there (except the oil wells), move in and take over the oil production ourselves. Or …

    2). We can cut the environmental crap and drill here NOW. We need to stop exporting what little oil we are producing at the moment to other countries and develop other energy philosophies (nuclear works) that will sustain us in the future. We can certainly sustain ourselves for many years on our own oil resources until that day comes (which is far closer than many think).

    Then, we can pull every last man out of that insidious region of the world and let the idiots annihilate themselves.

    scottymck

    July 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm

  7. by the way, in case that my sarcasm wasn’t shining through enough, i don’t think keegan (nor I) actually meant to say it’s good to kill everyone who isn’t with us. But i really do think that that is the logical extension of what some people (with strong bad-them vs good-us mentality) seem to think.

    taddelay

    July 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  8. Are you saying the war is about oil? Sounds like your forgetting why were there.

    keegansparks

    July 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  9. Quite to the contrary Keekan, if the war was about oil, we woudn’t be in the position that we are in, with high prices at the pumps and no control at all over the supply and demand situation.

    Point #1 in my “solutions” was a facetious one, to set up the second, more practical solution. If we don’t develop our own oil and alternative energy strategies, we will forever be embroiled in the insanity that is the Middle East, regardless of the reasons that we are there now. If we are independent in that regard, there is no reason for us to be concerned at all about what goes on over there. Let that part of the world solve its own problems – including Israel. The main reason that we became the target of terrorism in the first place is because we were sticking our nose (and weapons and financial support) where it doesn’t belong.

    I’m wondering, however, what you would suggest that Israel do, in light of the muscle flexing being done by Iran? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that he wants to wipe Israel off of the map, he is working on a nuclear program and is now demonstating to them that he has the means to launch those weapons, when they exist, into Israel.

    scottymck

    July 15, 2008 at 10:05 am

  10. Well Skotty I think oil is not nearly as important as you make it out to be. If the market were left alone alternatives would be developed and life would go on. High gas prices are doing a lot more good than people recognize, they are creating new and more efficient technologies that will eventually make life better for every one. Think I’m too optimistic maybe but it has happened before. In the mean time just remember that the government rakes in more for every gallon of gas than the oil companies.

    As for Israel my personal opinion is that God will protect them. And if he doesn’t then why do they still exist anyway?

    keegansparks

    July 15, 2008 at 8:09 pm

  11. Incidentally, Keegan, I did not mean to type your name incorrectly before. I apologize for the spelling error.

    Oil will always be important because far too many things that we use are dependent upon it – not just personal cars. It will be more decades than I will be alive if and when we find a viable alternative for some of the larger vehicles like semis, tractors and tanks. I’m not seeing the electric airplane anytime in the future either. Lubricants, cosmetics, fertilizers and far too many items to list are biproducts of oil, as well.

    I’ve made my feelings known about the Middle East and Israel far too many times before. If and when we are not dependent upon that part of the world for our oil needs (and yes, they are NEEDS at this point), they can blow each other to kingdom come as far as I’m concerned.

    As far as the U.S. is concerned, I hope we continue to have a stong military and won’t have to rely on God to protect us. The Lord helps those who help themselves!

    scottymck

    July 15, 2008 at 10:34 pm

  12. When you say help themselves do you mean kill our enemies instead of loving them like God says to?

    Keegan Sparks

    July 16, 2008 at 5:29 pm

  13. Keegan, I guess if that’s your real philosophy, your enemies will love you to death in return.

    Terrorists don’t worship the same God as Christians do. Islamic extremists have twisted the Koran in a way that their God, as they see him, wants them to kill us.

    In a confrontation where one turns the other cheek and the other blows his face off in return, I wonder which God will prevail?

    scottymck

    July 16, 2008 at 6:46 pm

  14. hmmm… looks like keegan’s going and trying to take jesus’ advice from matthew 5… we all know how ridiculous that gets in a world so complicated that jesus couldn’t possibly foresee. If there had been any violence at all in the world during Jesus’ time, he probably wouldn’t have thought loving enemies, returning evil with good, turning the cheek, etc., would have been a good idea either. He probably didn’t know what it was like to have a foreign enemy oppressing and killing you. It’s a good thing we moderns are more enlighted then him. i think yes?

    “In a confrontation where one turns the other cheek and the other blows his face off in return, I wonder which God will prevail?”
    eh… I suppose Allah wins, kindof like Allah won when jesus was so foolish as to love his enemies and be willing to let them kill him. Violence is always the better option in a tough situation.

    taddelay

    July 17, 2008 at 2:38 am

  15. The man who views the world at fifty the same as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.MohammadAliMohammad Ali

    SPP

    July 26, 2008 at 4:00 am

  16. […] For Iraq War – Remembering the Causes: Part III click here. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: