Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (104553)	7/10/2003 12:46:25 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The camp in question was not, in fact, under the control of the Kurds, and could easily serve as a training camp sponsored by the regime. It was indisputably used by Al- Qaida. I cannot recall what other evidence was presented, but it is wrong to say that it was proven to be untrue. I have already commented on the fellow who checked up on the Niger situation. As far as the forgery determination goes, I take the Administration's word that it had more to go on than that, even if it were later considered not firm enough. Duel use material is duel use material. There was never any convincing case made that they were not meant for nuclear programs. There was not "silence" about erroneous reports. The corrections came from the Administration, in a timely manner. The Administration is correct, the moble labs were pretty damning. The doubts expressed were not very convincing, and seemed to mean no more than being less than 100% sure. People like Cheney choose words carefully. "We believe" means just that. If he meant "we know", he would have said so. There is no reason to believe that the stockpiles did not exist, and there are several possible explanations of what happened to them. Most of them are probably buried in the desert, which makes them very hard to find.....

To: Rascal who wrote (104553)	7/10/2003 1:47:10 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

THE FACTS: The alleged Al Qaeda training camp, which Colin Powell described to the United Nations in February, is later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied warplanes. By late June, Michael Chandler, the head of the U.N. team monitoring global efforts to counter Al Qaeda tells Agence France Press: "We have never had information presented to us -- even though we've asked questions -- which would indicate that there is a direct link." These "facts" are just counterspin. A good many sober reports have come from Kurdistan regarding the ties between Ansar al Islam and Saddam's intelligence services. Ansar was clearly getting outside support. Yet your article presents the "fact" that Ansar operated in Kurdistan as some kind of definitive proof that there were no ties between it and Saddam, which is absurd on its face. A more sensible debate would present evidence that it was supported by Iran or Al Qaeda instead, but I have seen no evidence of that. Moreover, the terrorist training camp that Colin Powell referred to was NOT in Kurdistan. Powell was talking about Salman Pak, which lies about twenty miles south of Baghdad, in territory that was always Iraqi-controlled. After reading this much mendaciousness in just the first paragraph, I didn't bother to go on.