"this reference to Salman Pak has been used on this forum before. It is the result of intelligence from two Iraqi defectors. While I agree that such information may be of use, it is hardly concrete. "
Did you read any of the links? It is not simply the result of two defectors. Not only that, but there have been documents found at Salman Pak and Baghdad confirming the purpose of the camp. It was a terrorist training facility. This is not in dispute. You can argue whether or not it was used to train the 9/11 highjackers, but cannot argue whether or not it was a terrorist training facility.
"What was the result of Dr Kays examination of this 'WMD' site?"
It wasn't a WMD site. It was a terrorist training facility.
"This link also includes Tony Blairs pack of lies. Hardly hard core proof of WMD preparation."
The Hutton report sure seems to exonerate Mr Balirs "pack of lies" which btw, were hardly only from Mr Blair. Need I repost the report from Hans Blix YET AGAIN?
"Your next link is also based on information from an Iraqi defector, now resident in the US and includes this snippet in the short biography on the source, at the side of the article..... "He emigrated to the U.S. in May 2001. (Editor's Note: Although U.S. officials acknowledge terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, they say it is unlikely that these activities were related to the Sept. 11 attacks."
Many people here in the US disagree highly with this assessment. And as more evidence from Iraq come available, we will be able to prove or disprove this connection.
"Doesn't it also state in the article that it was used for anti terrorist training aswell?"
You're serious? "Anti-terrorist" training? Saddam? That was funny Steve.
"Was Iraq the only country to have it's secret services trained in such ways?....I think not. What does it say in the Bible...'let him without sin cast the first stone....'"
Saddam paid suicide bombers families in Palestine, financed and helped organize various other Arabic terrorist operations worldwide. This is not in dispute.
"I will be bluntly honest and admit that I am put off reading the remaining sources you offer. I am sorry Tim, but it is becoming tiresome and a little too predictable. "
Right. Maybe if you hold your hands over your ears and eyes and say "nanana-I'm not listening" enough times these facts will go away. Sorry, but this story has legs, and does not want to die.
"I should have known better when I saw the photo of the 'poster' of Saddam and the 911 images......repeated for the umpteenth time! "
I think actually it's about the third time, but hey, who's counting. Once again, the photo is simply window dressing. The facts in the links provided, which you choose to ignore, are what matter.
I find it interesting that people can rant on ad infinitum about Bush or the US Governments complicity in 9/11, but if anyone even suggests that it might have been a sworn enemy of the US, they get laughed at.
That's pretty sad for supposed intellectuals.
"Why do you continue to uphold all this poor 'propaganda', when many people, including the likes of Colin Powell, are expressing doubts about Iraqs WMD's? "
Because it's not propaganda. It's information. I gain absolutely nothing out of posting this info at this message board. What possibly could I gain?
"Piece by piece, the fabric of the 'Saddam WMD/911' propaganda is being unwoven and the reasons for the invasion of Iraq are being openly questioned by a great many people, not conspiracy theorists, commie agitators or Saddam appeasers but people in positions of trust and power."
Actually, support for the removal of Saddam continues to grow in the US, and has consistently been over 60% of the population. Also, the candidates who are running on the anti-war platform are getting trounced at the polls. Kerry voted for the invasion. WMD never was the only reason. Removing threats to our security was the reason.
"I am beginning to seriously question your motives for starting another thread like this."
Why? Because you won't examine the facts? Would it matter if someone else posted this info?