It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
BBC: Iraq war 'increased terror threat'
Britons are more - not less - likely to be the target of terrorist attacks as a result of the war in Iraq, an influential group of MPs claims.
Ex-British Ambassador: Iraq War 'Fueled Terrorism'
But in an interview with the Guardian newspaper, Meyer said: "There is plenty of evidence around at the moment that home-grown terrorism was partly radicalized and fueled by what is going on in Iraq."
"There is no way we can credibly get up and say it has nothing to do with it. Don't tell me that being in Iraq has got nothing to do with it. Of course it does," said the veteran diplomat, who was ambassador in Washington in the run-up to the war.
SHUSTER: The problem is that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis.
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing except for its part of—and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.
SHUSTER: But before the war, President Bush himself suggested Iraq was involved.
BUSH: The war on terror, you can‘t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.
We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high level contacts that go back a decade. He is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda.
link
Originally posted by LAES YVAN
After 9-11 we went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. We went to Afghanistan for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
Originally posted by Masisoar
On the grand scale at the time, Iraq had no huge threat posed to the U.S. and there were no Al Qaeda camps located in Iraq.
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing except for its part of—and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.
SHUSTER: But before the war, President Bush himself suggested Iraq was involved.
BUSH: The war on terror, you can‘t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.
We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high level contacts that go back a decade. He is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda.
link
The issue of Saddam's involvement has been a long-standing source of contention between London and Washington. In the days immediately following the attacks, President George W Bush confided to colleagues that he believed that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks. "He probably was behind this in the end," he said.
Originally posted by snafu7700
so i ask you again subz, where exactly did bush say that saddam was responsible for 9/11? stating you private opinion to someone confidentially is not the same as stating it as fact to the entire world on international television.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks," Bush said in a brief encounter with reporters after a meeting with members of Congress.
A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in March asked the question slightly differently and got a different result.
It asked, "Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, or not?" In that case, 51% said yes; 41% no.
Originally posted by snafu7700
its not that i agree with bush....i've said several times that Iraq was a mistake.
Care to share your source for that information?
Bush was right, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We went to Iraq because of the WMD and Al-Qaeda.
North Korea is a bluff, Kim Il sung always threatens us with WMD, but he says "If America attacks us, we will use Nukes, blah blah blah". He's a horrible poker player.
[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]
Seven months before two-dozen or so al-Qaida terrorists hijacked three commercial airplanes and flew two of the aircrafts directly into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocent civilians, CIA Director George Tenet, testified before Congress that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.
he government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.
Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
It asked, "Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, or not?" In that case, 51% said yes; 41% no.
How do you think people got that opinion?
Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
Source
Originally posted by snafu7700
so i ask you again subz, where exactly did bush say that saddam was responsible for 9/11? stating you private opinion to someone confidentially is not the same as stating it as fact to the entire world on international television.
Originally posted by snafu7700
its not that i agree with bush....i've said several times that iraq was a mistake. but starting an atsnn article that is, at best, a twisting of the truth to meet your own political views is kind of unethical, dont you think?
Originally posted by missed_gear
In this period of time it would not be a far stretch for people to associate the belief.
Saddam was harboring known terrorist Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Khadr al-Salahat, Abdul Yasin…the stretch is not too far…The mindset was already being prepared well in advance of the current administration.
You have already voted for subz this month.
Originally posted by TheBandit795
Iran is meant for the United States to lose it's credibility. That's what I think, especially after the whole Glaubatz scenario. It's credibility is going to end up being so bad that it will make it easy to assimilate it into the North American Union.
That's what I think.