Al Qaeda-Iraqi relationship proven beyond any doubt.

ABC World News Now | 4/27/2004

[Beckwith]

ABC World News Now. April 27, 2004

In an interview broadcast by ABC's World News Now, the leader of the Al Qaeda cell organizing the explosive and chemical attack on the Jordanian security headquarters and the American Embassy in Jordan stated that he received his training from Al-Zawahiri in Iraq, prior to the fall of Afghanistan.

[Labyrinthos]

This still shows a link between Iraq & al-Qaeda.

This only proves the relationship in the physical sense. It does not prove "beyond any doubt," however, a working relationship between the Iraqi Governement under SH and al-Qaeda. Not that I care because we had enough reasons to go after SH even in the absence of a relationship with AQ, but really, this proves only that Azmi al-Jayousi received training from an AQ operative -- Al-Zawahiri -- while physically in Iraq. Although the Iraqi government many have been involved, this does not prove it "beyond any doubt." To accept the premise by itself would mean that the United States government was behind the 09.11 attack because many of the hijackers learned to fly airplanes right hear in the CONTUS.

[petercooper]

Nope- the libs said there was no connection. I believe them.

/sarcasm

[VRWC_minion]

stated that he received his training from Al-Zawahiri in Iraq, prior to the fall of Afghanistan.

How can this be. Saddam hated them.

[billbears]

Your Clintonian denials are duly noted.

Oh, so it's 'Clintonian' now to not accept every sensationalist report that has no factual evidence behind it? I thought that would be conservative

The links between Iraq and AQ pre 9/11 have been provided for you MANY times. The press wrote over 100 articles about the growing relationship between Saddam and bin Laden in the 90's.

The Weekly Standard and National Review are not magazines I would consider part of the media. But if you want to accept press releases from the PNAC as factual evidence that's your business. I'm just wondering if you'll be as 'gung-ho' about this WOST if it's led by someone of another party. Frankly I don't think so. Your partisan values are glaring

Your denials are silly. And so are you.

If refusal to sell out my values and my ability to deduce there has been no evidence provided by the administration to support your claims is silly, than I'm ridiculous as h#ll. Didn't you get the RNC memo? It's not about 'terrorism' in Iraq anymore. It's 'spreading democracy'

[Shryke]

Comments?

[MizSterious]

Hah! It's not just the libs, there are plenty on this site who are doing the spewing--even though there were threads about Salman Pak (clue: it's in Iraq, and it trains aspiring terrorists how to hijack airliners) on FR for ages.

I think some people will not be satisfied unless we somehow produce a fully-armed and ready to go nuclear warhead in the possession of a certified, authentic, card-carrying AlQaeda terrorist.

[Burkeman1]

Yet another "story" that will be posted as "proof" of the Sadaam/AQ links for months on this board but will never be verified by any named figure in our government.

By the way? Isn't ABC "biased" against Bush?

[Peach]

The AP has had stories about the Jordanian chemical attack that was thwarted. There are many stories about it. They have been verified, but nothing could ever be verified to your standard.

The links I have from the 90's when the press was reporting on the growing relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are from mainstream newspapers and magazines including Newsweek and the NYT. You know - your standard bearers.

As well, we have a Jordanian leader of the AQ terrorists admitting on television that he trained in Iraq in WMD with OBL's head henchman.

But NO PROOF will ever be enough for you. You don't want to be wrong. I understand that. But it doesn't take away from the central fact that you have been proven wrong.

The smell of vindication just gets stronger every day.

[Peach]

Now you've done it. The chief naysayer will find some way to parse the fact that a Jordanian AQ leader has admitted on television that he trained in WMD in Iraq with OBL's head henchman.

Some people do not want to let the facts get in the way of their opinions.

[1Old Pro]

This wasn't a report. It was a video statement made by Azmi al-Jayousi, himself. Again, it wasn't a report in the press. It was this man's own video-taped testimony.

Not good enough for the American media. They'll need photos of them meeting and training.

[Shryke]

You'll have to forgive me. I'll explain: once I can get John (or whomever) to commit to parsing, in the long run, once facts become irrefutable, I can simply point them to their own comments and perhaps illuminate their denial. Impossible task? Probably. At least I'll have alot of evidence to provide, in the end.

[MizSterious]

Here's a blast from the past--

9/11 Bombshell: Judge Rules Saddam Trained Hijackers [Salman Pak]
Newsmax ^ | 5/9/03 | Newsmax wires

Posted on 05/09/2003 7:47:49 AM CDT by =Intervention=

In a bombshell finding virtually ignored by the American media, a U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan ruled Wednesday that Salman Pak, Saddam Hussein's airplane hijacking school located on the outskirts of Baghdad, played a material role in Sept. 11's devastating attacks on America.

The ruling renders moot complaints from Bush administration critics that the U.S. has so far failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, since an official verdict that Baghdad was complicit in the attacks provides more than enough justification for the decision to topple Sadism Hussein's regime.

In reporting Judge Harold Baer's $104 million judgment against Hussein and Osama bin Laden, only the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Chinese news service Xinhua mentioned Salman Pak by name.

But according to courtroom testimony by three of the camp's instructors, the facility was a virtual hijacking classroom where al Qaeda recruits practiced overcoming U.S. flight crews using only small knives - a terrorist technique never employed before 9/11.

At least one veteran of Salman Pak, Sabah Khodad, has maintained that the 9/11 hijackers were actually trained by Saddam's henchman. He told PBS in Oct. 2001 that the World Trade Center attack "was done by graduates of Salman Pak."

The Inquirer called the finding "dramatic," noting that it was the first legal claim tying Baghdad to America's darkest day.

Meanwhile, the New York Times and the Washington Post, which opposed the war in Iraq, have so far declined to report the first official ruling linking Saddam to 9/11.

The ruling represents a huge victory, not only for the families of Timothy Soulas and George Eric Smith - the two 9/11 victims in whose name the suit was brought - but for former CIA Director James Woolsey, one of the earliest proponents of the Salman Pak-9/11 connection.

His authoritative testimony, backed by satellite photos showing a Russian-built Tupolev 54 airliner parked in the middle of an open field, offered key support for lawyer James Beasley's argument that Salman Pak played a role in attacks.

Beasley told the Inquirer that persuading the court about the link was "a hell of a hurdle to get over."

One significant obstacle faced by the Philadelphia lawyer was that Woolsey's successor at the CIA, George Tenet, has never included Salman Pak among evidence tying Iraq to al Qaeda - and has publicly denied that Baghdad played any role whatsoever in the 9/11 attacks.

Tenet's decision to ignore the critical role played by the camp is said to be based, in part, on friction between the CIA and the Iraqi National Congress, which helped several Salman Pak veterans defect to the U.S. and made them available to the media.

Tenet's opposition is believed to have been key in the decision by the Bush administration not to spotlight Iraq's 9/11 role, leaving White House officials with the sole argument that Saddam Hussein threatened the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.

But as the postwar search for WMD's enters its fourth week without any major find, some now fear that the Bush administration's decision to side with Tenet over Woolsey on Salman Pak is shaping up as a major political blunder.
Source

Somewhere on FR, there are actual pictures of the site. Yet some people continue to go off on these "there's no connection" tangents. (shaking head)

[Peach]

I know. They are fun to play with for a while, watching their denials grow and their spin wind its way through a thread. Then it all gets so Clintonian and we get tired of it all.

[Peach]

LOL. They ARE fun to play with, aren't they? Lots of entertainment.

I'll say it again - I love the smell of vindication in the morning.

[Shryke]

Enough citizens of the respective states believe there is a connection, even though one hasn't been officially made.

If evidence turns into solid facts, and a connection is made, pre-war, what would your position be?

[Burkeman1]

NO- it could be verified. How about Bush- not even him- just a leading official from the Bush administration coming forward to verify these news stories that always seem to evaporate within weeks?

[Peach]

You don't have a shred of proof that OBL and Saddam didn't collude together.

On the other hand, there are lots of connections that prove they did work together.

But don't let your bias get in the way of facts. Wouldn't want to disturb your little worldview.

[Peach]

Now why the Bush administration doesn't talk about these connections more often than it does is a good question and one I have long pondered.

I imagine it's because they know the press will react like you have. Demanding absolute proof. Like in a court of law - blood evidence sort of stuff. Videotape. You know -the stuff we are never going to have. Don't have it in lots of murder cases either but we manage to put criminals away every day.

[Quilla]

[Peach]

What DO the naysayers say about Salmon Pak anyway? I'm sure they have an excuse to explain it away.