Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group, was a gang associated with Salman Pak, but there is another reason that this training facility is important.  Satellite photographs taken of the camp revealed that the base contained the fuselage of a passenger aircraft.  According to reports from five separate sources, foreign fighters trained at Salman Pak, using the fuselage to practice hijacking civilian airliners with knives and other edged weapons.  You recall that the vast majority of the 9-11 hijackers were not Iraqis and that naked blades were used in that attack.

Hussein’s regime maintained that the Salman Pak aircraft body was used by Iraqi military forces for anti-hijacking training.  I believe that the dictator’s version was merely a cover for the real purpose of the fuselage, which was terrorist rehearsal.  A former Iraqi officer, Abdullah Rahman al-Shamary claimed that Salman Pak was built as a training camp for al Qaida by the Iraqi military.

There is another wrinkle to the saga of Salman Pak.  A well-known terrorist named Abu Nidal reportedly completed a “work program” associated with Salman Pak and airline hijacker Atta before the 09-11-01 airliner hijackings.  Nidal was efficient enough and a good enough leader to have a terrorist group named after him.  I suppose he could have been teaching trainees how to bake cookies, but I doubt it.  What was Nidal doing around Salman Pak?  He died in Iraq.  Nidal was apparently a very determined suicide.  According to reports, he shot himself four times in the head.  Was he just hard core?  Was Nidal a bad shot?  Was he murdered to silence him forever about his possible role in the 9-11 attacks?  (Please read the above link “Nidal.”  It lays out in graphic detail Saddam Hussein’s terrorist links.  Not for the faint of heart.  This is the Mother Lode.)

In addition to the pre-war reports about Salman Pak as a training facility for foreign fighters and Abu Nidal’s presence at the camp; during Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. ground forces encountered non-Iraqi combatants in the vicinity of the installation.

Does the totality of this information “prove” that the hijackers who attacked New York City and the Pentagon were trained in Hussein’s Iraq?  Probably not to the level of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  A U.S. District Judge did rule in favor of plaintiffs claiming damages against Hussein for the 9-11 attacks.  Does the totality of this information, when combined with Hussein’s support for terrorists, including al Qaida, strongly suggest that he was a festering threat to the United States?  (See Posts 1 and 2 under the Category-War on Terror.)

I reject the Left’s assertion that the rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was an artifact of the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” or “Blood for Oil” cabal.  It is also doubtful, in my opinion, that disinformation agents working for Saddam’s Iraqi enemies in exile could have put together an incredibly elaborate hoax to deceive U.S. Intelligence.  Unless there is another explanation for the Salman Pak ”trout in the milk,” I believe we must conclude that the circumstantial evidence regarding Hussein’s terrorist collaboration against America is persuasive, if not damning.  Ergo, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was well justified as being in the national interests of the United States of America.  Dare we question the motivation and/or the wisdom of those who continue to bray that Operation Iraqi Freedom began an unnecessary war?  (Stay tuned for Part 4.) 

Def Mech

I’m not an attorney.  No.  I don’t play one on TV or radio.  I’m just an old U.S. Army Intelligence guy.  I do, however, believe that I have some basic understanding of the concept of complicity in criminal and or terrorist activity.  This is my layman’s view of the situation.

We have conspirators.  These are people who discuss a criminal activity, then someone involved commits an overt act to further the purpose of the crime under discussion.  We have accessories before the fact.  These are people who assist in preparation for the commission of a crime before it occurs.  We have participants in the crime, itself.  Then, we have accessories after the fact.  These folks assist the perpetrators of the crime in escaping law enforcement personnel, destroy evidence, provide shelter, or carry out some other activity with the knowledge that the assistance is provided in support of the criminals/terrorists.

I am going to assert that Saddam Hussein was at least guilty of being an accessory after the fact in the first World Trade Center bombing.  I believe he conspired with al Qaida to attack U.S. interests in 1995, and that he at least offered to be an accessory before the fact in the 09-11-01 World Trade Center/Pentagon airliner attacks.  (Hussein may not have had specific knowledge of the 9/11 attack plans, but he certainly knew, or should have known that bin Laden intended to continue his war against the U.S.)  I will discuss other circumstantial evidence and many unanswered questions about Hussein, al Qaida and WMD in future posts.

I believe it has been established that the first abortive World Trade Center Bombing was carried out by a group affiliated with al Qaida.  (Read the whole article, “Pages 1 and 2,” about seven actual pages.  I don’t know who arranged this thing.)  Also note the association of an Iraqi intelligence officer with attendees at an al Qaida planning meeting in Malaysia in 2,000.  According to Malaysian/U.S. intelligence reports, Iraqi operative Ahmad Hikmat Shakir rode with two of the future 9/11 hijackers to the hotel where the four-day meeting took place.  

Wanted Terrorist Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was named as a participant in the first WTC attack, reportedly lived in Baghdad, Hussein’s Capitol City, on a government pension following the 1993 bombing.  This would make Saddam Hussein an accessory after the fact in the first WTC attack, because he gave shelter and assistance to one of the wanted suspects.

A 1995 document that was apparently unavailable to the 9-11 Commission, because it had not yet been discovered and translated, appears to be an agreement between Hussein’s government and al Qaida to attack U.S. interests.  This looks a lot like conspiracy, considering subsequent al Qaida activities, including the attack on the USS Cole.

Finally, when al Qaida Chief bin Laden left Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein offered the terrorist asylum in Iraq.  Only bin Laden’s apparent refusal to accept the offer kept Hussein from again becoming an accessory after the fact in the first WTC bombing and the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy bombings, and an accessory before the fact in the second WTC and Pentagon attacks.

I believe these examples are ”smoking guns” that give the lie to the idea that the secular dictatorship of Hussein would not and did not cooperate with the Islamofascist terrorist group known as al Qaida.

I further believe that people who say that there was no pre-invasion al Qaida involvement in Iraq and that the U.S. Government “took its eye off the ball” by deposing Saddam Hussein are either misinformed or disingenuous.  The strong circumstantial evidence of the Iraqi dictator’s involvement with al Qaida and other terrorist groups is also persuasive.  (Stay tuned for additional posts on this topic.) 

There is a French saying, “Dis-moi qui tu hantes, et je te dirai qui tu es.”  It translates roughly as, “Tell me who you hang out with, and I will tell you who you are.”  Hussein hung out with terrorists.

Def Mech